Getting Feisty

[PW2]

Re: Getting Feisty

When the story changes from one day to another, as it has in this case, the natural assumption is they are hiding something.

JB, there is no attorney clent privledge between Gonzales and the president, as he is not the president's attorney. He is the chief law enforcement officer in the land, representing all the citizens of this country.

And those citizens have a right to expect the justice in this country to be meted out fairly, as the rule of law is the cornerstone of what this country is supposed to be about.

 

[Gabby]

Re: Getting Feisty

If you honestly believe all Clinton did was "fib" then there is no point in having a debate.

The man belittled and besmirched thei highest office in the nation. He made a mockery of the Presedential Office. If GWB is guilty of anything, it might be, MIGHT BE, not knowing all the answers and poor decision making.

However, having said that, I would follow the current administration and the current Pentagon Brass into the gaping maw of hell if asked, KNOWING they have the good of the country at heart.

Clinton cut and ran from Somalia as soon as he got 18 Rangers killed. Prior to that attack they asked for Armor and were told, NO, that would signify an escalation of hostilities. I wouldn't follow that man into the peep show.

Re: the N word, no worries. I just think we are too quick to label anymore. I mean, forgive me, but after a few of your posts some un flattering terms have come to mind, BUT, being an open minded fellow...I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
d

 

[CJY]

Re: Getting Feisty

I'll say it again. Hillary fired-93+ We're arguing over eight?

Hypocrisy at it's finest. Trouble is, less than 20% of the American population knows what "hypocrisy" means. You know it and use it. Shame on you. However, since no morals, no shame-right?

What say you:

-Haut
-Boom
-PW2
-12'r
-i386
-CJY, among others.

What say?

I want a "rational" explanation for why this is an issue for GWB and NOT the Clintons.

I don't know, are you mind-reading? When did I say it was not an issue for me. I was not on this board during the Clinton admin....was this even in existance then? I no longer speak of it because it's history and 2 wrongs do not equal a right....that is, if you call both cases "wrongs."
That is yet to be determined...I guess.

To answer your question regarding the Clintons, it did matter to me, it just makes no difference today. Rather than placing blame on the democrats for bringing this issue into the light today, I guess you should have done the same a few years ago. It's not the democrats fault you overlooked issues that took place back then. Complaining today is a bit like closing the gate after the cattle got out.

And don't give me that carp about reps being above it, because we both know it's not true. Say it with me, Kenneth Starr.

BTW, a witch hunt is when more than 100 subpoenas are issued regarding Clinton's Christmas mailing list. But then again, you repubs are against that sort of thing as verified by the above posts.

DJ, you said "hypocrisy" is used incorrectly. Where did I misuse it?

 

[CJY]

Re: Getting Feisty

Re: the N word, no worries. I just think we are too quick to label anymore. I mean, forgive me, but after a few of your posts some un flattering terms have come to mind, BUT, being an open minded fellow...I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Well thank you Gabby, I will sleep better tonight.8)

"If GWB is guilty of anything, it might be, MIGHT BE, not knowing all the answers and poor decision making. "

Poor decision making? What exactly does that mean?

If I make a poor decision and cause people to die, it's nothing more than a poor decision? Or do I have to be Prez before it's called that? I agree, if that is what you believe, there is no point to debating.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Getting Feisty

Quote Gabby

But your comparison likened him to Bill, who would have sold the White House and Hillary's privates to the highest bidder. If you truly believe that than your letting politics cloud your judgement.

This coming from someone that is trying to take the morol high ground? Are you accusing the President of the United States of being capable pimping his wife?I hope that isn’t so, but that’s the way I took it.

Gabby you say that you were in, I believe the Army? Well I was in the Marine Corps, at a different time, and a different war. Spent a lot of quality time, and a lot of not so quality time with people that in civilian life I would not like to associate with. I’ll try to shorten this up a bit, I wouldn’t be here typing this to you if it wasn’t for the biggest drunk, in the 11th Marine Regiment saving my life .He was my gunny, and if you had seen him in the recruitment office you would most likely have run and joined the Navy, but in a combat situation he is who you would want at your back .I,m sure you are familiar with, what I guess you would in the Army call them “field solders”, we called them “field Marines”, in the barracks they were sxxtbirds, weren’t meant to be in the barracks meant for combat. In other words the commander in chief can be a Sxxtbird and still be a better leader that an incompetent.




Omer this time I hope you get your wish and the republicans take the suggestion of **** Morris, of course it would be for entirely different reasons r.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Getting Feisty

Judges?.....I thought they were attorneys.....

PW- Bush doesnt need attorney privilige...HE HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILIGE. If you need a clear definition you could seach the net ....type clinton admins.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: Getting Feisty

Caught me oddjob. Substitute attorney for judge. Different character, same result.

 

[JB]

Re: Getting Feisty

PW2, The Attorney General has been, and may be, grilled under oath by the lynch mob.

My comment referred to current and former counsels to The President (Harriet Miers, et al). They are immune to such partisan antics.

 

[PW2]

Re: Getting Feisty

Miers might be, but Rove isn't. I'm not sure an oath means much to Rove anyway, but without an oath, there is no point in hearing what he has to say, as he can say anything he wants to.

They weren't for Nixon. It'll be up to a court to decide, btw, but I doubt they'll agree this is a case of national security.

This, however, is how congressional oversight is supposed to work. It is the balance of powers, and designed to not allow any one branch of government to get too dominant over the other.

At least the Senate overturned that part of the Patriot Act, by a vote of 94-2, that allowed this president to slip in his choices with no Senate confirmation.

 

[i386]

Re: Getting Feisty

Flattered that you're interested in my opinion DJ but I haven't came across a straight source on this as of yet. Hehe, but if the hard righties keep pointing back at the Clintons yelling "hey, look at what they done", they're gonna make me think that's all they've got.

So far I've heard:
Yabut Clinton did it.
Yabut Clinton did it at the beginning of his term.
Yabut GWB did it bacause of a loophole slipped into the patriot act.
Yabut look what Hillary did

Paraphrasing JB, Ratzacratza. Dang if I know what to think about it anymore. Is there any precedent in firing the whole bunch like that late in the term? Why isn't anyone asking why?
Yabut at the Presidents pleasure..
Yabut congress has to....

Sorry, clueless on this one. Both sides sound full of it if you ask me.


I'd like to take a little stab at what Xtraham said about the oath. Putting your hand on the Bible is supposed accomplish 2 things:

1. Compel you tell the truth because you fear the consequences of not doing so from God.

2. Make lying under oath a criminal act.

Only the latter matters in court, Ten Commandments or not.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Getting Feisty

Quote:
Sorry, clueless on this one. Both sides sound full of it if you ask me.


Hey, thanks for being honest. Now its your job ( the American citizen) to find the truth in the matter. Come back here and post what you come up with.

I'm still stuck to one fact....a president has the right to fire any or all of his attorneys at ANY point of time in his admin.

Can ANYONE dispute this? Will anyone!????


lets leave slick willy out of it ....fine by me..

 

[xtraham]

Re: Getting Feisty

Mike,
I don't know how my post was taken,
us easternshoremem talk backwards ya know..
let me try to explain
the "far left", removed prayers from all public schools, removed any religious literature from all public places,
they do not believe in God, or any higher power.
and the first thing I read at the start of the thread was a complaint about not laying your hand on the bible "OR" swearing to whom ever, before commenting to prove truth, i.e.: my comment about the oath
all and all a liar will lie oath or not............

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

When the story changes from one day to another, as it has in this case, the natural assumption is they are hiding something.


Spoken by one who actually believes Joe Wilson and undercover sister. Priceless!

 

[i386]

Re: Getting Feisty

Mike,
I don't know how my post was taken,
us easternshoremem talk backwards ya know..
let me try to explain
the "far left", removed prayers from all public schools, removed any religious literature from all public places,
they do not believe in God, or any higher power.
and the first thing I read at the start of the thread was a complaint about not laying your hand on the bible "OR" swearing to whom ever, before commenting to prove truth, i.e.: my comment about the oath
all and all a liar will lie oath or not............

In other words they want him under oath so if he gets caught lying they can prosecute him. Has nothing to do with having respect for the Bible in regard and throwing out the Ten Commandments in another.

 

[xtraham]

Re: Getting Feisty

it's like Boom said who are they supposed to swear too, mother earth?
why be under oath ? if they get caught lying prosecute oath or no oath....

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

Can someone please tell me what crime anyone is charged with or alledged to have committed that requires testimony?

 

[bekosh]

Re: Getting Feisty

Can someone please tell me what crime anyone is charged with or alledged to have committed that requires testimony?

Being a conservative in public office.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Getting Feisty

Mike,
I don't know how my post was taken,
us easternshoremem talk backwards ya know..
let me try to explain
the "far left", removed prayers from all public schools, removed any religious literature from all public places,
they do not believe in God, or any higher power.
and the first thing I read at the start of the thread was a complaint about not laying your hand on the bible "OR" swearing to whom ever, before commenting to prove truth, i.e.: my comment about the oath
all and all a liar will lie oath or not............

In other words they want him under oath so if he gets caught lying they can prosecute him. Has nothing to do with having respect for the Bible in regard and throwing out the Ten Commandments in another.

[colour=blue]Yup i386, ya claim not to know much about this, so let me try to boil it down for ya. A little over 200 years ago some smart and courageous fellers, (representing the wishes of about 30% of the population at that time), fought the Brits and handed us a great opportunity to have the wonderfull Country we now have. The 20 page document that governs and restricts the government set up three branches to share power. The executive has the power to prosecute the laws passed by congress as intrepreted by the judicial branch to conform with the restrictions in the aforementioned 20 page doc: PERIOD. Generally most executives place people with similar priorities to them to carry out this essential governing function. President Bush ran on a "uniter not a divider" platform in 2000, (impossible to do IMHO). That said; he opted to keep President Clinton's picks. At any time for any reason Mr Bush can fire any or all of 'em: Period. Democrats and Libs are real mad their guy: President Clinton was exposed to be in a very corrupt fellon, (based on his principal partners actually goin' ta jail: i386), and his own admission. The Dems and Libs want to get even. They succeeded in creating a legal trap that Mr. Libby was foolish enough to fall into. A corrupt prosecuter in Texas criminalized politics there costing Delay his position. Smelling blood, they now want to test a time tested corncept called "executive priveledge". If they can get Rove, (the big prize) to testify n' then compare his comments with the emails Mr Bush turned over and cripple this and any future President from getting candid PROTECTED advice ever again. Tom is just pointing out the humorous (to Cornservatives, [and maybe only Cornservatives get the point]) irony of godless Libs demanding an oath. Hope this little rant sorts things out for ya. Respectfully JR[/colour]

 

[i386]

Re: Getting Feisty

if they get caught lying prosecute oath or no oath....

I'll sign off on that.

 

[xtraham]

Re: Getting Feisty

Thanks JR, Stevieray told me to stick to the smilies....