Getting Feisty

[Plainsman]

Re: Getting Feisty

Just to lend assistance to liberals who from day one, just can't seem to hear or maybe the concept is too difficult to understand.

The Readers Digest version.

The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for political or any other reason(s).

The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for no reason(s).

I wonder how many times you or some else has said that here pointer? Some folks just refuse to see the facts and are enjoying the witch hunt. Nothing more to it than that.

I would hope that the congress had more important things to other than witch hunts and voting on asinine bills about a deadline. But if this is the way the dems want to go, let them have at it.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

Plainsman,

Once you realize the fact that NOTHING ILLEGAL occured, the rest is meaningless. With that said there are some that................. :}:}:}

 

[Kalifornyakid]

Re: Getting Feisty

So let me see if I got this right.
Only the Democrat presidents can... no, that aint it. The prez can fire attorneys if they don't follow the dress code... nah, that aint it either. Repub prez can't fire anybody, period... nope, still not it.
This is tough! Could ya repeat it one more time please?
8)8)8)

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Getting Feisty

I'm not worried 'bout you Cornservatives. I know ya have to have at least one functioning brain cell or ya wouldn't be Cornsevative. Bro Haut stated that real clearly a while back. I worry about the rest of 'em. Unless they are jus' gettin' us worked up n' havin' fun. (My guess). JR 8)8)

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Getting Feisty

Plainsman,

Once you realize the fact that NOTHING ILLEGAL occured, the rest is meaningless. With that said there are some that................. :}:}:}

I realized since this fiasco started, maybe I wasn't clear. I agree with you.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Getting Feisty

I'm not worried 'bout you Cornservatives. I know ya have to have at least one functioning brain cell or ya wouldn't be Cornsevative. Bro Haut stated that real clearly a while back. I worry about the rest of 'em. Unless they are jus' gettin' us worked up n' havin' fun. (My guess). JR 8)8)

Exactly OMR, that's why it's called a troll.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Getting Feisty

Give it up guys. This thread's been going on over 3 days now and nobody's giving an inch. It's a waste of time.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Getting Feisty

Quote Boatboy


Give it up guys. This thread's been going on over 3 days now and nobody's giving an inch. It's a waste of time.


I thought it was dead, lo and behold up popped its ugly head today. As long as I’m here, hey Murky,Pointer,Plainsman, your all of you wrong, I’m right.8)

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Getting Feisty

Don, I'm glad you've come over to the right! 8)

 

[treedancer]

Re: Getting Feisty

:%:%

 

[Tail_Gunner]

No Subject

No Subject

 

[Gabby]

Re: Getting Feisty

You know, this whole thing reminds me of a few local isues that seem appropriate. To me anyway.

Ky is a right to hire, right to fire state.

The local Mass Transit company recently fired 5 people. 3 popped positive on a urinalysis test for illegal drugs. One had in excess of 3 accidents in a 6 month period. One had a DUI.

These are bus drivers. They're all members of a union.
All the cases went to arbitration and the bus company lost 3 of the 5. . Remember, this is a right to hire right to fire state. However, it isn't an AT WILL state. Hence, since the drivers are all union, that trumps the right to hire right to fire.

Bottom line, these peopel DID commit an illegal or unsafe act that jeapordized themselves and members of the public, they were fired, and then rehired. Because of a union.

I see the similarity being that Bush can fire whomever he pleases, and of course the left, the liberals, (often union supporters) scream foul. However, when it suits them, they strkek, walk, picket or shut the company down. Or fire 93 people with no ramifications.

Amazing how what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Getting Feisty

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

Quote Gabby

Or fire 93 people with no ramifications.

Amazing how what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Have take exception with the statement that Clinton and President Bush were any different on the firing of U.S. Attorneys. Hears is an excerpt from the Los angles Times, I will have to abbreviate it a bit as I am typing from the article that is in the St.Loius Post Dispatch. The author is David G Savage.

I will provide a link to the LA Times but if you go thru there web site you will have too log in ,which I don’t want to do ,if you want to get around that you might try going in thru the back door (IE) first go in thru there sport page some times it works .

In a March memo titled “Draft talking points, justice department spokeswoman Tamis Scloinos asked:” The White house is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton US Attorneys in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?

That is mostly true, replied D.Kyle Sampson, then –chief of staff to Attorney General Alverto R. Gonzales.”Clinton fired all Bush USAs in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton USAs but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months

A few minutes later, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. Mcnulty replied to the same memo.”on the issue of Clinton USAs we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April.In contrast Clinton Do told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately” McNulty said.

The deference appears minor. Both the McNulty and Sampson acknowledged the Bush administrating, like the Clinton administration, had brought in a new slate of US Attorneys within a few months of taking office.

Historical data compiled by the Senate shows the same pattern going back to President Reagan. Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 US Attorneys in his first two-years in office. Clinton also had 89 new US attorneys in his first two years in office, while Bush had 88 new US Attorneys in his first two years in office.

 

[Link]

Re: Getting Feisty

Hey, ya'll are the ones that wanted the ten commandments removed, and prayers removed, and all that, now you WANT an oath?
will ya make up your mind................

Could you keep them figures up a little longer?
Would work for me on this post.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

Watching liberals devine some kind of offense to meet their needs is kind of fun. It runs parallel to the democratic party's shift towards socialism/communism. If they don't like what is going on, create a crime. Not really American, but hey the UN doesn't subscribe to freedom either.

I can't wait to hear about the next division of power issue (whine), but I somehow think peoples positions will be different.. :}