[AnnieA]

Originally Posted by bbronston

LOL...yes, I read the article! Did you? Tell me "at least 2 things" that Scott has done that were unconstitutional. Someone's opinion of Scott's ability to do or not do something is not the same thing as his doing something that is unconstitutional. In fact, there has only been one thing that was challenged and Scott won that one in the state supreme court. (Just in case you need that explained, and I don't mean that in a rude way, that means he did not overstep his constitutional power.) You know, you need to read these things carefully and not just look for things that reaffirm your already pre-conceived opinions. If you don't like the guy, fine. I'm not wild about him either but I try to look for truth and solutions and I try to leave the emotional rhetoric behind. Granted, it's not easy!

Best post on this thread. I think most normal thinking people are waiting to see how he does before passing final judgment on his actions. So far, so good........but with an open mind and keeping the facts straight....

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by mango23

He has been on Fox news almost every week since he has been elected. He is not being singles out, he is a media wh0$e as long as it is Right wing. He won't even talk to the press unless he is sure it is a set up and he is being questioned by a stooge. He is just a uglier version Palin.

So, you are saying that because he won't give the time of day to the biased news purveyors that YOU like and who are likely to be negative towards him, he is somehow a media wh0$e? Sounds pretty smart to me. I sure as heck wouldn't give them my time if I was him. Geez, I wish you guys would think before you write. Ya know, Obama wouldn't talk with Fox for a very long time--only to the democrat "stooge" news companies. Did that make HIM a media wh0$e, too? OK, forget that. What has that got to do with the original point that the article discusses? It seems to me that you'll do or say just about anything to speak negatively about the guy or the state but your substance is sorely lacking and you are short on solutions but long on complaints.

I'm not a Scott fan but I do believe in fiscal responsibility-that means a balanced budget. Everyone will have to be involved because that is the only way to do it. He wants to cut spending, reduce taxes (so you get to keep more of YOUR money, and create a more favorable climate for job creation. How can you argue against those things? You can argue about how we get there but, if you are against those things (the only things I am arguing for) your entire reasoning is suspect in my book.

[AnnieA]

...kshe95girl...."He annoyed the ambitious Senate president, as well as a host of leaders in conservative states, by trying to kill off a database to track the fraudulent distribution of addictive prescription drugs before it was up and running. He did so without consulting lawmakers, calling the monitoring system an invasion of privacy......

but that wasn't a constituitional issue was it ? That was my understanding....more of a courtesy issue. If I am wrong, I would be glad to admit it. I do believe the database is needed and disagreed with his position......

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by AnnieA

but that wasn't a constituitional issue was it ? That was my understanding....more of a courtesy issue. If I am wrong, I would be glad to admit it. I do believe the database is needed and disagreed with his position......

One would think that he would need the consent of the lawmakers, thats pretty much the way a democracy works.

[FLGator487]

Originally Posted by mango23

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us...rida.html?_r=1

Even the fascists in the RPOF can't agree on what is "more conservative"...scary.

So ready to leave this hellhole and never look back...can't wait till it happens in summer. I do love South Florida, but it just can't balance out the negatives of the rest of the state - chief among them politicians with a mentality straight out of the 1910's.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

I have to copy and paste the revelatory parts of the article for you, really????
Here ya go.

"In his first two months in office, the governor has irritated the State Senate’s powerful Budget Committee chairman by selling two state jets without legislative permission, a constitutional no-no. The governor wanted the sale done quickly (he uses his own plane), and he succeeded."

"He annoyed the ambitious Senate president, as well as a host of leaders in conservative states, by trying to kill off a database to track the fraudulent distribution of addictive prescription drugs before it was up and running. He did so without consulting lawmakers, calling the monitoring system an invasion of privacy. "

There was a reason he chose to unveil the budget in Eustis.

OK, trying again: just saying it is unconstitutional does not equal unconstitionality. It must be determined by the court. Perhaps you've heard of the concept that someone is regarded as innocent until proven guilty? Think of it in those terms and it might make more sense to you. You could be right if and when the court finds it so but, so far, he has not been found guilty of anything. On your second example, the same things I mentioned before apply and, for pete's sake, that is your example? I don't know you but I'd be willing to bet that you would, in a moment of honesty, agree that this is a lame example. Upsetting other lawmakers rises to unconstitionality?

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

One would think that he would need the consent of the lawmakers, thats pretty much the way a democracy works.

Scary...if your logic is right, how is it that unilaterally turning down the rail money was found to be constitutional?

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by bbronston

OK, trying again: just saying it is unconstitutional does not equal unconstitionality. It must be determined by the court. Perhaps you've heard of the concept that someone is regarded as innocent until proven guilty? Think of it in those terms and it might make more sense to you. You could be right if and when the court finds it so but, so far, he has not been found guilty of anything. On your second example, the same things I mentioned before apply and, for pete's sake, that is your example? I don't know you but I'd be willing to bet that you would, in a moment of honesty, agree that this is a lame example. Upsetting other lawmakers rises to unconstitionality?

Having been a journalist, I can say with just a teensy-weensy bit of knowledge that this article was put under a microscope before it was published, given the crux of the article.
Therefore, I would put more faith in the reporters version of the truth than yours.
Your posts seem rather cranky to me, and they seem to have a compulsion to argue.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Scary...if your logic is right, how is it that unilaterally turning down the rail money was found to be constitutional?

Ah, but I didnt say that, now, did I?
Please desist from the desire to put words in my mouth.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

Ah, but I didnt say that, now, did I?
Please desist from the desire to put words in my mouth.

Uh...yes, you did. AnnieA said that not consulting with lawmakers was a courtesy issue and you said that not consulting with lawmakers rose to the level of unconstitutionality. I said that couldn't be true because he didn't consult with lawmakers regarding the rail money and that was found to be constitutional.

You are right about me...I am cranky right now because it drives me crazy when people espouse nothing but self-rationalized personal opinions as fact and then rely on bad, biased opinion pieces that pass as journalism to justify their opinions. They don't bother to critically evaluate information and they are completely close-minded to any other point of view because it doesn't fit into their world view. I have been a screaming liberal and a moderate in my life. Now, I just look for facts and solutions and I look for opportunities to shine the light of truth on the weasel pseudofacts that people like you seem to love to rely on.