Attorney General, member of presidents cabinet = executive branch of government.
case closed.

//HA HA!!!!!

Good thing it's called White House Privilege, then.

I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?

So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"

kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Yeah, they didn't think that one through.

morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.

So they're not the White House's papers then. So shut up and sit down.

/major FAIL

facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.

FlashHarry: morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.

I miss him.

And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.

Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.

Man, sounds like you're saying that both sides are bad. I guess you'd better vote for the party whose budget plan blows the deficit up even more, and by that of course, I mean the Republicans.

cameroncrazy1984: Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

A fiscal conservative? Bull. He's not cutting taxes for people who make 30 times what I will ever earn in my lifetime, who for some reason I desperately care about, while slashing social programs intended to provide a base level of subsistence to my family.

Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Oh right, my bad.

cameroncrazy1984: Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Oh right, my bad.

That wasn't directed towards you, specifically. Just in general, since the two are often used incorrectly as synonyms.

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party. He's too Keynesian for me, though I don't want to get into an unsolvable argument over the relative merits of Classic and Keynesian economics, but otherwise he governs largely from the center.

Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?

RminusQ: Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.

Man, sounds like you're saying that both sides are bad. I guess you'd better vote for the party whose budget plan blows the deficit up even more, and by that of course, I mean the Republicans.

I am not a "both sides are bad, so vote Republican" conservative. There are some Democrats I would prefer over some Republicans. I would vote for Obama over Palin so long as I hadn't had a lobotomy or been irradiated by a malevolent energy form of a kind we've never encountered. Based on their histories (and not their *stated* positions), Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?

Sheila Jackson Lee is a good example.

And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

To be fair, I'll list some of the loons in the Republican Party:

Birthers

The Grover-Nordquist crowd (absolutes are generally bad)

Young Earthers

Allen West

Most of FOX News

Ricardo Klement: And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

You can't even name actual people? And the groups that you can name are either not affiliated with the Democrats (truthers) or exist in both parties.

Ricardo Klement:

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.

Hmm, which Democrat said this:

"I believe America must say - and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."

and this:

"Before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: "Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?"

And which Democrat has a billionaire throwing hundreds of millions their way from someone who thinks Israel is the 51st state, and nothing is more important?

BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.

Do you think historical precedent has any bearing for today's GOP? Their policy -- first and foremost on every issue -- is "WHARRRGARBBLLL-BAMAAAAAAAA!!!!"

There is ZERO evidence that they care about anything else other than making Obama look bad. ZERO. Zilch. No compromise. Nothing. Never. They've decide to make their bed this way... we'll see what they end up sleeping in come November.

Can't we just fast forward to the part where it's all Obama's fault?

Ricardo Klement: Most of CurrentTV

So YOU'RE the guy watching that.

Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Man if only liberals were this good at soundbites and bumpersticker sayings like on a national level.

Headline: Obama completely owns this scandal he had nothing to do with

Jackson Herring: Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Man if only liberals were this good at soundbites and bumpersticker sayings like on a national level.

Like Roman candidates for Consul scrambling for a truly memorable sator square to sway the ignorant plebes, the politics of the world's only superpower once again comes down to "beer-drinkability-with-ism", "shortest policy position I have to remember", and "the other guy did much worst stuff than I ever got caught for".

kmmontandon:

which exist in both parties

I must say that for an NRO article, that was pretty well written.

Jonah Goldberg must be on vacation.

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

You can't even name actual people? And the groups that you can name are either not affiliated with the Democrats (truthers) or exist in both parties.

I'm at a loss to answer this without appearing to be insulting. Sheila Jackson Lee isn't an actual person? I didn't say Democrats were Truthers, I said there are too many Truthers in the party. After all, Birthers aren't affiliated with the Republican Party, but you didn't object to my including THEM. And for Christ's sake, I even SAID for Israel they exist in both parties, but it's a matter of how many.

Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"

[citation needed]*

*Not really. I just like lame Wikipedia jokes.

GAT_00: kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Yeah, they didn't think that one through.

It won't matter. The don't lose points for logical inconstancy with their audience.

vpb: GAT_00: kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Yeah, they didn't think that one through.

It won't matter. The don't lose points for logical inconstancy with their audience.

Today: Of course Obama wasn't involved. He isn't competent enough to keep an eye on what the crooks in his administration are doing. You know those people aren't that bright.

Tomorrow: Of course Obama was involved. It's his administration, and just like one of those people to orchestrate this sort of malfeasance on his watch.

I'd say their views are pretty consistent...0BAMA BAD!!!

Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.

But they're way more closely aligned with the issues that Democrats (purport to) care about than Peace activists, 9/11 Truthers, or the Evangelical Israel supporters.

That last one is actually typical of lots of Republicans as well: Democrats support Jewish causes, Republicans support Israel.

Still haven't figured out your "MIC" comment yet.

Wait, Military Industrial Complex? That's kind of an odd thing to claim, that lefties think that most of the people working for it are mindless drones.

On the contrary, my own brother was a Marine and then worked for a couple of years for Xe, so I know that the people that work for those companies aren't all pro-war Republicans marching in lockstep toward war. But the leadership of those companies does want war as a route to more corporate profits. I don't think that's deniable.

Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?

Left wing is not synonymous with the Democrats just like right wing isn't synonymous with the Republicans. There can be whack jobs who lean left or right without really being associated with, or having any real influence with the parties that tend to be on either side of the spectrum.

Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Aarontology: How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?

Well, not many. That really wasn't what the original goal post was though, which was "loons that exist in the Democratic Party." Ricardo claims that there are too many of said loons, but I argued that his list didn't accurately reflect the real loons in the party anyway.

Granted, I also dispute his claim that there are too many loons in the Democratic Party, but I never really got into that.

I have very little idea how executive privilege works. It always seems a bit shady. And in this case, I was a bit confused.

Holder asked for EP on documents not related to F&F, but to his conversations within the administration about how to respond to Congress' questions on F&F, I thought. His letter (longwinded) seemed to only want to protect communication after the investigation had started, not the original F&F documents.

Either way, as I understand EP, it is the final trump card. You could I guess appeal to the SC, but then it becomes a separation of powers argument.

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?

Operation Liberty Guns for Freedom, Puppies and Jesus

SphericalTime: Aarontology: How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?

Well, not many. That really wasn't what the original goal post was though, which was "loons that exist in the Democratic Party." Ricardo claims that there are too many of said loons, but I argued that his list didn't accurately reflect the real loons in the party anyway.

Granted, I also dispute his claim that there are too many loons in the Democratic Party, but I never really got into that.

I suppose I misread the post then.

But it made me think of LaRouche and how funny crazy he is, so not all was lost.

I_C_Weener: I have very little idea how executive privilege works. It always seems a bit shady. And in this case, I was a bit confused.

Most governments have something equivalent. In Canada it is Memorandum to Cabinet which is highly protected.

Imagine having to come up with important decisions. You will get advice, recommendations, crazy ideas and discuss the impact and repercussions of them. If none of this information is protected from the public, it would be impossible for people to have true discussion/debate on any issue without fear of it being used against you politically.

If the F&F thing blew up and Holder sent a communication to the White House on the issue and recommendations on how it should be handled (damage control), that could legitimately be protected under privilege IMHO. Recommendations to the White House from staff should be protected. Other types of information, reports, studies might be on shakier ground.

Your headline has encouraged me to watch Guy Ritchie movies tonight.

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.

But they're way more closely aligned with the issues that Democrats (purport to) care about than Peace activists, 9/11 Truthers, or the Evangelical Israel supporters.

That last one is actually typical of lots of Republicans as well: Democrats support Jewish causes, Republicans support Israel.

Still haven't figured out your "MIC" comment yet.

I think that the assertion that Israel runs our foreign policy is not an expression of support.

MIC="Military-Industrial Complex" and a lot of Democrats believe the MIC is a major determining factor if we go to war because they can make money off of it.

SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.