Althouse: "As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

July 24, 2011

"As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

Boehner says he told Obama.

66 comments:

bagoh20 said...: But, I won!; 7/24/11, 11:45 AM
Darleen said...: IIRC, Obama wasn't all that impressed with the Constitution and really wants to take a blue pencil to it to correct where the Founding Fathers got it wrong.; 7/24/11, 11:49 AM
Opus One Media said...: So write the law and see. It won't get by the senate so you don't have to worry.

Your way or the highway - well Mr. Boehner, you and Mr. Cantor and the freak show that is Grover Norquist just missed the bus - ships sailed - plane has left the gate.

That's us Mr. Boehner - holding the bag.

Same old blog.; 7/24/11, 11:50 AM
Darleen said...: That's us Mr. Boehner - holding the bag.

Actually, HD, Obama wants my grandkids "holding the bag."

I say "No". And so far I'm at least encouraged that the GOP in D.C. still has spine to stand on principle.

My confidence that the GOP wont cave and condemn my kids to peonage is way too thin, though.; 7/24/11, 11:54 AM
Carol_Herman said...: The HOUSE writes. The senate "confirms." And, only then does it arrive at the white house. To sign. Or to pocket? Who knows?; 7/24/11, 11:54 AM
Rose said...: "As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

Which is why all this ordering Congress around is so ludicrous.

Great piece on all of this from Doc Zero... in part: in addition to recoiling in horror at the thought of America’s chief executive being arrogant enough to even speculate about the joys of dictatorship out loud, a thoughtful town hall attendee might ask why the Democrats didn’t balance the budget when they had total control of Washington from 2009 to 2010, and point out that they have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006. But you’re not supposed to ask questions like that.

Obama also told his audience that “it’s hard to keep up with all the different plans” for handling the debt crisis. No, it isn’t. There’s are only two real plans: the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which enjoys the support of a huge majority of Americans, or leaving the debt ceiling where it is. There are no other plans. There are only vague outlines… absolutely none of which have come from President Obama, who has made no concrete proposals at all.

It's not a crisis if you can see it coming, yet Obama keeps careening from one 'crisis' to another, and it's always "we have to act now! or the world is going to end." Like creating a false sense of urgency gives him moral authority. It's the only way he knows to command.

2012 cannot come soon enough.; 7/24/11, 11:57 AM
Rialby said...: Harold is still as lame as always.

Just passing through.; 7/24/11, 12:00 PM
Tim said...: Ironic the erstwhile "constitutional law professor" (does anyone really believes he was, rather than an affirmative action totem?) gets a lecture on the Constitution from the Speaker.

We'll look back on these years and wonder how an entire nation (o.k., 53%) went stupid.; 7/24/11, 12:03 PM
David said...: Impossible to believe that budgeting for Federal Agencies can't be done the way everyone else does it.

Federal Manager, here is your budget. Figure out how to run your operation with this amount of money. If you will not or cannot function as an executive and MANAGE, then we will accept your resignation and find someone who can do the job.

Every Federal Agency should be funded according to what it received in 2006. Things worked fine at that level, didn't they?; 7/24/11, 12:04 PM
Rialby said...: Well, we should all recognize that the problem with the Constitution is that it's a charter of negative liberties, and that it says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government MUST do you on your behalf.; 7/24/11, 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: It is passingly strange to me, that the Democrats -led mostly by Reid, who knows what Obama is thinking - have effectively said NO to TWO plans written by the GOP and passed in the House of Representatives: the Budget and the Cut,Cap and Balance Act. They have done so without discussing or trying to amend either the budget or the act.
And yet, the Democrats have not yet even presented what they want IN WRITING to be passed, amended or even discussed.
It is difficult to put any credence in what the Democrats orally say - as same is open to interpretation and "clarification" and in any event would need to be put into writing to get passed as a law to be signed or vetoed by Obama.
Yet, iirc, it is the Democrats who have been bleating so much about the GOP's being the Party of NO - where do the Democrats stand, I mean, of course, today? How serious can they be about raising the debt ceiling without putting something in writing and WHY hasn't the MSM called them out on this?!; 7/24/11, 12:11 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Sarah Palin noticed Obama is a lame duck.; 7/24/11, 12:12 PM
Carol_Herman said...: ... Coming to the edge nearest you.

Boehner knows the clock is ticking. (It's ticking for Merkel, too.)

If the bubble bursts? The banks get it this time! And, through "default" ... who write down debt.

You shrink what is owed by paying pennies on the dollar.

New taxes? Can't be squeezed out, this time. Ain't no Nobel Prize big enough to cover Obama's bare tuchis.; 7/24/11, 12:15 PM
Joe said...: Obama negotiates like a little child; he keeps changing the terms until he gets what he wants. His word is not his bond.; 7/24/11, 12:17 PM
edutcher said...: Oh, boy, I'll bet Little Zero's eyes crossed when Boehner hit him with that one. I guess Zero never covered that part when he lectured in Constitutional law.

Darleen said...

IIRC, Obama wasn't all that impressed with the Constitution and really wants to take a blue pencil to it to correct where the Founding Fathers got it wrong.

Excellent point.

He's the latest in a long line of Democrats starting a century ago with that arrant racist and unreconstructed Confederate (how he must be spinning!), Woody Wilson.

Little Zero thinks the Constitution should be like Chicago. Whatever the capos want, the capos get.

HDHouse said...

So write the law and see. It won't get by the senate so you don't have to worry.

Your way or the highway - well Mr. Boehner, you and Mr. Cantor and the freak show that is Grover Norquist just missed the bus - ships sailed - plane has left the gate.

That's us Mr. Boehner - holding the bag.

HD doesn't get it.

The Demos own it - according to their brilliant DNC chair; they had the chance to pave the highway for 2 years and didn't want to.

So that means the Republicans will fix it. And the longer the Demos stonewall, the more the Demos' numbers drop.; 7/24/11, 12:20 PM
bagoh20 said...: A second chance to test those warnings back in 2008. We were told that we averted a disaster by propping up the big players in the squishy machine.

I still want to see what happens if we don't. Somehow I think the market powers will find a way to avoid jumping out of their office windows.; 7/24/11, 12:22 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: This is something that always bugged me about Bush.

He never vetoed the laws that he disagreed with.

It doesn't matter that his veto may be overridden by Congress, but for God's sake take a stand.

This is how the system works.

Congress writes the laws. The President either vetoes or signs the law. If vetoed it goes back to Congress, where it can be amended and sent back to the Executive Branch for signing or veto again or Congress can just override the veto.

Rinse and repeat.

Boehner and the rest of the conservatives need to pass a law and send it to the Senate. If the Senate doesn't like it it goes back to the House.

Take a stand and write the bill without cravenly giving in to the Demos and Progressives. Do what you were elected to do.; 7/24/11, 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: @David: "Impossible to believe that budgeting for Federal Agencies can't be done the way everyone else does it."

You're implying that the feds have a lick of common sense, let alone business sense.

Can you imagine any board of directors of any organization of any size allowing its CEO to operate without a budget for more than two years?

We're crazy for tolerating this idiocy.; 7/24/11, 12:24 PM
madAsHell said...: Lame Duck!!

I'm not a big Palin fan, but....DAMN!...she can sure capture the country's sentiment in 25 words, or less.; 7/24/11, 12:24 PM
bagoh20 said...: Yea, I remember taking a little pride in Bush at the beginning for his refusal to veto the Dems laws. It seemed so bipartisan and nice of him.

Unfortunately, I have a history of being an idiot. I voted for Carter.; 7/24/11, 12:27 PM
Curious George said...: "Tim said...
We'll look back on these years and wonder how an entire nation (o.k., 53%) went stupid."

Well, apparently cool observation, sober examination, resulting in a rational choice had something to do with it. Or at least lying to yourself that that's what you.; 7/24/11, 12:29 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Impossible to believe that budgeting for Federal Agencies can't be done the way everyone else does it."

Exactly.

Just give every department a 10% reduction in budget this year and then 5% every year for the next 5 years or until we get to a point of stability.

There is no way that there is not the ability to cut 10% (or more) without impairing the service that the department is providing.

Eliminate redundant or obsolete agencies and departments.

Balancing the budget without the boogeyman of default is not at all an impossible task.

They just don't WANT to do it because the special interest groups that may have some of their candy and party favors cut down, will throw temper tantrums and the politicians don't really care about the Country or the future. All they care about is keeping power, getting elected and getting rich in office.; 7/24/11, 12:31 PM
Curious George said...: "Dust Bunny Queen said...

Boehner and the rest of the conservatives need to pass a law and send it to the Senate. If the Senate doesn't like it it goes back to the House."

Uh, they did. Twice.; 7/24/11, 12:31 PM
mariner said...: And so far I'm at least encouraged that the GOP in D.C. still has spine to stand on principle.

I'd like to believe that's what's happening, but I don't.

They're dragging this out until the last minute, at which point they will reach an agreement with Democrats that raises the debt ceiling and makes trivial (if any) cuts in spending.

We don't need to cut a measly few hundred million or a few billion from the budget. We need 1-1/2 trillion in cuts, and we need them now.; 7/24/11, 12:32 PM
DADvocate said...: There's that damn Constitution thing being brought up again. Next thing you know they'll want Obama to abide by the tenure/election laws for being president. He's the CHOSEN ONE!! The hell with antiquated pieces of paper!!; 7/24/11, 12:36 PM
Roger J. said...: I think Mr Boehner has it about right; Mr Obama seems to have not much apprehension of the separation of powers nor the relative size of Article 1 versus Article II. Perhaps the Speaker should "summon" Mr Obama to the Capitol or better to the national archives where they can read the constitution together.

As to HD Houses point, perhaps the point is to put the democratic senators on the record as to their position on the issue--They are vulnerable in 2012 and their vote on this becomes a matter of record for the vulnerable senators.

Send the bill over and let Asshole Harry and his running dogs vote it down.; 7/24/11, 12:39 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Next thing you know they'll want Obama to abide by the tenure/election laws for being president.

You think the leftists who comment here haven't been mulling that very thing?

You better believe they're fantasizing about it at the White House.; 7/24/11, 12:41 PM
Alex said...: Obama seems to forget his place. He's not the dictator as much he wants to be. Thanks Boehner for reminding everyone we live in a REPUBLIC.; 7/24/11, 12:41 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Boehner and the rest of the conservatives need to pass a law and send it to the Senate. If the Senate doesn't like it it goes back to the House."

Uh, they did. Twice.

I know, I meant they need to keep doing it and continue sending the bills until we get something real passed. If not, we have no future as a country.

Send bills that are real, meaningful, that create real economic progress. Cutting 1 trillion dollars over many years is ridiculous.

We are sinking in debt and the Dems want to use a teaspoon to bail out the boat.

When THIS is the problem the answer is not more spending and higher taxes.; 7/24/11, 12:43 PM
bagoh20 said...: Does anybody really believe there will be much in the way of real cuts? Maybe a little slowing of growth, but in the end we will have a more expensive government in the coming years. We are insisting on an eventual disaster, because our leadership consists of few true leaders.

Compromise is not leadership. When you come to a fork in the road and you decide to continue the wrong way, but agree to go slower, just to get along, you need new leadership.; 7/24/11, 12:51 PM
Roger J. said...: If cuts are deferred to the out years not much will happen except for accounting gimmicks.; 7/24/11, 12:53 PM
MayBee said...: Federal Manager, here is your budget. Figure out how to run your operation with this amount of money. If you will not or cannot function as an executive and MANAGE, then we will accept your resignation and find someone who can do the job.

It baffles me as well.
However, as MadMan pointed out to me, it would require federal managers to manage, which doesn't seem to be part of the job description.; 7/24/11, 12:56 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Boehner, next time you vote for something like Medicare, Part D, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have a plan in place to pay for it.; 7/24/11, 12:56 PM
Curious George said...: DBQ:

While I agree with your sentiments the reality is that the GOP only holds 1/3 of the government. A Senate with a small majority could probably be moved but there will not any dramtic cuts in spending as long as Obama is the POTUS.

I would send short term measure with minor cuts in spending and keep kicking this can to 2012. If Obama vetoes he can explain why.; 7/24/11, 12:56 PM
Alex said...: Actually the GOP holds the SCOTUS and 1/2 of the Congress. That comes out to holding 50% of the government.; 7/24/11, 12:57 PM
Brian Brown said...: HDHouse said...

So write the law and see. It won't get by the senate so you don't have to worry.

Alternatively,
The only "plan" Barack Obama has put on paper is his February budget. Were there trillions and trillions of savings in that? Er, no. It increased spending and doubled the federal debt.

How about Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader? Has he got a plan? No. The Democratic Senate has shown no interest in producing a budget for two-and-a-half years.

But hey, blame Republicans as "accountability" is something you'd never shout at an elected Democrat.; 7/24/11, 1:04 PM
The Dude said...: Which contains more shit - hdhouses' rants or his Depends?; 7/24/11, 1:07 PM
Brian Brown said...: By the way, I wonder what the "constitutional law lecturer" said in reply?; 7/24/11, 1:07 PM
edutcher said...: Peter Hoh said...

Boehner, next time you vote for something like Medicare, Part D, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have a plan in place to pay for it.

The campaigns in Iraq and A-stan grew out of us being attacked. Defending oneself is something of a necessity. A necessity to which the Demos happily signed on until they wanted to create some political mischief.

And I don't recall the Demos worrying about paying for air campaigns in Yemen and Somalia or fighting Europe's war in Libya which, it would appear, we are about to lose.

Jay said...

By the way, I wonder what the "constitutional law lecturer" said in reply?

Uh....; 7/24/11, 1:10 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: A Senate with a small majority could probably be moved but there will not any dramtic cuts in spending as long as Obama is the POTUS.

Congress (supposidly) holds the purse strings. In other words the spending and budgeting and authorizations for spending originates with Congress.

The Executive Branch can request spending and has veto powers, but Obama cannot unilaterally spend or raise the debt ceiling. This is why there is major objection to McConnell's plan. It gives away the Constitutional powers of Congress and eliminates, in this area, the checks and balances that keep us from becoming a dictatorship.

Even though this House, which consists of more republicans and conservatives,may not get their bills approved by the Senate, they MUST keep sending those bills along and the republicans in the Senate MUST force a vote, so that the public can see who is being responsible and who is playing political games with our lives.

I would send short term measure with minor cuts in spending and keep kicking this can to 2012. If Obama vetoes he can explain why.

Minor cuts or cuts in spending that don't take effect until 10 or 20 years are useless. We are in deep doo doo now.

I don't think we can rule out tax increases. HOWEVER, the class warfare of high income earners paying 70 to 90% of ALL taxes collected and attempting to raise their taxes even more is completely counterproductive to solving the problem.

If we had everyone...EVERYONE who is working pay something, even a minimal amount, that would be the more fair system.

As it is now almost 50% of the population is sucking the life and resources from the others who pay all the income taxes. Increase taxes on those freeloaders.

Tax eaters versus tax producers.

As a tax producer, I am getting damned tired of being someone else's rented mule.; 7/24/11, 1:13 PM
Methadras said...: HDHouse said...

So write the law and see. It won't get by the senate so you don't have to worry.

Your way or the highway - well Mr. Boehner, you and Mr. Cantor and the freak show that is Grover Norquist just missed the bus - ships sailed - plane has left the gate.

That's us Mr. Boehner - holding the bag.

Same old blog.

Well, well, well, the crusty curmudgeon of the little shit-hole shanty decides to squirrel cage enough power into his batteries to turn on his computer to write this peace of nonsense. So how will you feel when the money you have in your pocket and bank account will literally lose 10% - 20% of it's value the day the debt ceiling is raised because more money will need to be printed?

Please go back to whatever Rip Van Winkle state you came out of. You are better off that way, idiot.; 7/24/11, 1:37 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Edutcher, no matter the justification for these wars, would it not have been prudent to plan to pay for them with something other than borrowed money? And if borrowing was going to be the plan, then raising the debt ceiling follows.

If Congress wants to spend money, they should be obligated to figure out how to pay for it, no matter the justification.

And how would you explain Medicare, Part D? That certainly should have been paid for with something other than a plan to borrow more money.; 7/24/11, 1:44 PM
Tim said...: Curious George said:
"Well, apparently cool observation, sober examination, resulting in a rational choice had something to do with it. Or at least lying to yourself that that's what you.

Indeed. The worst lies are the ones you tell yourself.; 7/24/11, 1:57 PM
Titus said...: Personally, I want a default.

I am curious what will happen.

If geezers don't get social security checks I would kind of like that.

Is that bad?; 7/24/11, 2:03 PM
DADvocate said...: Next thing you know they'll want Obama to abide by the tenure/election laws for being president.

You think the leftists who comment here haven't been mulling that very thing?

You better believe they're fantasizing about it at the White House.

Oh, I believe it. The left pretended to fret that Bush would find some excuse to declare martial law and remain CIC. They would like nothing better than for Obama to do just that. Maybe that was part of the goal of Fast and Furious.; 7/24/11, 2:10 PM
Brian Brown said...: Peter Hoh said...

Edutcher, no matter the justification for these wars, would it not have been prudent to plan to pay for them with something other than borrowed money?

No matter the justification for the departments of Education, Housing & Urban Development, Commerce, Energy, EPA, USDA, and HHS, would it not be prudent to plan to pay for them with something other than borrowed money?; 7/24/11, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Per Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Sounds like the government is required, per the Constitution, to pay its debts.; 7/24/11, 3:22 PM
Big Mike said...: You know, looking at these budget negotiations reminds me of when my sons were toddlers. Sometimes Daddy had to say "no, we can't afford it," no matter how nice it might be and definitely no matter that everybody else has it.

Barack Obama is emphatically not the adult in the room -- there's a reason why Republicans are called the "Daddy Party."; 7/24/11, 3:23 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Big Mike, Congress already signed off on the spending. They have proven again and again that they can't say no.

Jay, nothing about what I wrote suggested that it's okay to fund those with borrowed money.; 7/24/11, 3:31 PM
edutcher said...: Peter Hoh said...

Edutcher, no matter the justification for these wars, would it not have been prudent to plan to pay for them with something other than borrowed money?

Fine. When the Demos quit playing politics with Social Security and Medicare and we put the government on a paying basis, I have no problem with pay-as-you-go, but Boehner & Co are dealing with a system the Demos put in place and insist on maintaining.

We live in that world, although we're going to have to create a new one damned soon.; 7/24/11, 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: "As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

The Constitution? Shit, that thing's a hundred years old!

Before the 2008 election Eugene Volokh posted Obama's final exam questions for several years' worth of Constitutional Law courses. They revealed that Obama should have called the courses "Minority Grievances and the Constitution" -- he didn't cover anything else.

It would be amusing for some heretic to ask the President at a press conference to name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. I'll bet he couldn't do it.

wv: dersupe -- "Ich bin der supe!"; 7/24/11, 3:55 PM
Nomadic100 said...: Posters have been wondering why government managers cannot manage like managers everywhere else.

Different rules apply there.

My late mother was an executive at the Treasury in D.C. She constantly lamented that she could not terminate incompetent/lazy employees.

She also told me that no government managers ever spent less than had been appropriated or else the next year's budget would be reduced. I'm sure that has not changed.; 7/24/11, 4:05 PM
caradoc said...: There is a decent likelihood there won't be a deal, simply because Obama doesn't want a deal. Either agree to massive increases in taxes and spending (i.e. massive increases in government control of the economy AKA socialism/communism) or he'll force a default and when the economy collapses the press will convince the sheep that it's because of evil republicans and they'll demand govt does even more "for" them (i.e. massive increase in govt power). That's why the goalposts keep shifting -- because there is no "good faith" here. Time is running out on the dem's control of the media and they're getting desparate. They need a new crisis to nlot let go to waste.; 7/24/11, 5:12 PM
Phil 314 said...: What I still don't understand is how did Harry Reid get off scott-free.

We knew going in we had a Democratic President with a liberal voting record as a senator and a penchant for spending since coming to the White House.

On the opposite side we had a House with a Republican majority and a vocal and determined Tea Party faction.

So one can assume the determining factor would be the Senate with a thin Democratic majority but with both moderate Democrats and Republicans.

Theoretically the focus should have been on the Senate. But what did we get.....

(and as an aside to more conservative Republicans, "we" really did blow it in 2012 with Sharron Angle. Imagine a Senate with one more Republican and the ever-irritating Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader. He would have attracted some attention!); 7/24/11, 5:24 PM
edutcher said...: Phil 3:14 said...

What I still don't understand is how did Harry Reid get off scott-free.

I don't think he has. Most accounts today are bringing this down to the House. The Senate, as well as the White House, is seen as being irrelevant.

Dingy Harry apparently was Chuckie Schumer's lapdog on all of this and Schumer thought the Demos could work this the way they did in '95.

The problem is Willie had the illusion of peace and prosperity, as well as Newt as a foil going for him back then. This time people know what's at stake and Little Zero playing Nerobama isn't helping.; 7/24/11, 6:02 PM
edutcher said...: Phil, FWIW, apparently Dingy Harry is caving.

I know - it could be a trap.

He may have finally lost it.

The Weird Sisters from Maine or Lindsay Gramnesty could still blow it.

Little Zero could throw another tantrum.

Chuckie Schumer could stage a coup.

But, for once, it may just be that the Republicans have held the fort.

For real.; 7/24/11, 6:20 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Phil wrote: Imagine a Senate with one more Republican and the ever-irritating Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader.

I suppose you meant "minority leader."

But yeah, that Angle/O'Donnell thing worked out great for the purists.; 7/24/11, 6:35 PM
edutcher said...: Well, the RINOs in DE certainly showed their true colors, didn't they?

Might have worked a little differently if the gave they kind of support they always demand from the "purists".

BTW, those "purists" are the real Republicans, not Assistant Democrats like Castle.; 7/24/11, 6:41 PM
Kirk Parker said...: bagoh2o,

"I still want to see what happens if we don't. Somehow I think the market powers will find a way to avoid jumping out of their office windows. "

Or not. Sounds like a win-win setup to me.

wv: greedies. Honestly, I swear I am not making this up!; 7/24/11, 7:15 PM
Franklin said...: "A republic, if you can keep it." - Franklin (Ben); 7/24/11, 9:14 PM
Joe said...: Obama hasn't presented a plan in public. The Republicans have. So has Tom Coburn: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=1d817708-76ed-4b2b-9cc2-076415409d44; 7/24/11, 9:37 PM
Cincinnatus said...: The Democrats failed to address our financial mess when they controlled both Houses of congress and the White House for two years. Did not even pass a budget at all because they did not want to go into the 2010 congressional elections with any actual record to defend before the voters.

Obama keeps changing his negotiating positions.

And people like HDHouse blame Republicans?

The partisan dishonesty manifest.; 7/24/11, 10:01 PM
autothreads said...: That's us Mr. Boehner - holding the bag.

As you get ready to light it and leave it on someone elses porch.; 7/24/11, 11:02 PM
Pragmatist said...: As an independent voter I would be more impressed by the Republicans fiscal conservatism if it wasn't so newly discovered. They had no problem letting Mr Bush and his friends raid the Treasury for 8 years and run us into debt. Of course that is little talked about now. Nor their complicity in this debt to "our grandkids". A poltics of faulty memory. And Mr Boehner did not seem to have that attitude when his President shredded the constitution during his tenure. If you have ideals have the decency to be consistent with them.; 7/25/11, 1:25 PM
Scott M said...: Of course that is little talked about now. Nor their complicity in this debt to "our grandkids". A poltics of faulty memory.

I'm not sure what circles you run in, but it is, as Eddie Izzard once said, "multi-talked about". It's never, ever not mentioned in a thread about fiscal conservatism. I'm very aware of Ser Bush's problems re conservative fiscal policy. Don't paint with broad brushes or you'll ruin the trim.; 7/25/11, 1:27 PM
Joanna said...: The Constitution? Shit, that thing's a hundred years old!

More like 20 centuries old.; 7/26/11, 1:42 PM