Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So about that Gonzales fellow...

1235710

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life
    Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.

    He was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. That's it. I'd say it was blown all out of proportion.
    Oh really? Because I thought the need to make sure everyone knows your "black", the argumentative skills of a 17 year old who listens to Rush Limbaugh, and running around acting like you see what everyone else misses pointed at someone who might have taken an elective Debate course in high school.
    Hoo hoo - what fun. "When all else fails. . .go for the Clicheâ„¢" - kudos to you guy - kudos.

    EDIT: Haha - just got the "black" reference. . .yup, you definitely take this shit too seriously.

    What Cliche? You're argumentative skills are lacking, and you honestly can't seem to make a decent point to save your life.
    Impeaching Gonzalez
    On what grounds would you impeach him on?

    Are you simply not paying attention anymore?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Oh really? Because I thought the need to make sure everyone knows your "black", the argumentative skills of a 17 year old who listens to Rush Limbaugh, and running around acting like you see what everyone else misses pointed at someone who might have taken an elective Debate course in high school.

    Hoo hoo - what fun. "When all else fails. . .go for the Clicheâ„¢" - kudos to you guy - kudos.

    EDIT: Haha - just got the "black" reference. . .yup, you definitely take this shit too seriously.

    Like the man above me said, what cliche? All you do is run around spewing the same "talking points" I could hear if I wanted to go to foxnews.com. You don't bring anything new to the table other than "hay guyz ima conservative on a liberal board lulz!" At least when El Jeffe does it he has an actual tangible point and opinion that he's formed on his own through as opposed to just being a mouthpiece. Or a tool. Same difference.

    And what do you mean "take this shit too seriously"? Maybe you didn't notice, but this is debate and discourse? If you run into a thread waving your dick around and not knowing what you're talking about, don't cry because people rip you a new one. Try to make a salient point sometime in the future.

    And yeah, you're the only person I've ever seen who's been like "Hay I'm X". I don't give a fuck if you're a token Eskimo gamer, it dosen't make you or your half assed opinions anymore valid.

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    He was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. That's it. I'd say it was blown all out of proportion.

    He was impeached because he lied during a federal investigation - but I guess when you make it "blowjob" instead of what it ACTUALLY was, then yea - it all does seem kinda silly.
    Are you simply not paying attention anymore?

    To kneejerk group-think? I rarely do. But maybe if you give Sampson or some of the other JD staffers some more time, theyll actually say what the JD did was LEGALLY wrong - because so far he (or anyone for that matter) hasnt said that.
    All you do is run around spewing the same "talking points" I could hear if I wanted to go to foxnews.com.

    "Someone tries to discredit contrary opinion by referencing foxnews - TAKE A DRINK!"

    What was that about tired ol' debate tactics?
    If you run into a thread waving your dick around and not knowing what you're talking about, don't cry because people rip you a new one.

    Holy frijole - click the Red X mate - seriously. Because youre about to reach that No Return point that seperates reality and "Hey Ma, lookit me - Internet Roughneck!". I really am not concerned with you projecting some nonsense meaning on to what I've written on my avatar or whatever - in the 4 years its been up, you're the only person whos sensibilities were so OFFENDED that they felt they needed to make it into something its not. So yea - you are taking shit "way too seriously".

    "Rip you a new one" indeed - if this were an internet-posing contest, easily 1st Place.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    He was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. That's it. I'd say it was blown all out of proportion.
    He was impeached because he lied during a federal investigation - but I guess when you make it "blowjob" instead of what it ACTUALLY was, then yea - it all does seem kinda silly.

    I mentioned the lie. I said that he was impeached for a lie. However, he was lying about something not really important to a federal investigator.[/quote]

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Goumindong wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life

    Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment in the case of the White Water land deal?

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment at any time ever?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    He was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. That's it. I'd say it was blown all out of proportion.
    He was impeached because he lied during a federal investigation - but I guess when you make it "blowjob" instead of what it ACTUALLY was, then yea - it all does seem kinda silly.

    I mentioned the lie. I said that he was impeached for a lie. However, he was lying about something not really important to a federal investigator.
    [/QUOTE]

    So its not that a person lies during an investigation (never mind the attempts to coach staff members on what to say to the jurt) - its whether you think the charge is relevant in the first place?

    This is all OT, but it really does speak volumes on how folks can castrate one group for one thing (lying to investigators about when you spoke to reporters, firing people who serve at your behest) and then just sweep under the rug others (lying to investigators, coaching staff members on testimonies, Travelgate).

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life

    Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment in the case of the White Water land deal?

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment at any time ever?

    Who said anything about Lewinsky? Lewinsky's name came up because of the open investigation regarding Paula Jone's - wait for it - sexual harassment lawsuit.

    You know this is one reason these discussions turn to crap - people are more interested in GOTCHA! moments than actually DISCUSSING.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Ed, Bush lied about somthing that had no basis on his fitness to lead the united states.

    Are you really this dense or are you just playing devils advocate?

    Edit: who the fuck is paula jones?

    Spoiler:
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Ed, Bush lied about somthing that had no basis on his fitness to lead the united states.

    What are you talking about.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    This is all OT, but it really does speak volumes on how folks can castrate one group for one thing (lying to investigators about when you spoke to reporters, firing people who serve at your behest) and then just sweep under the rug others (lying to investigators, coaching staff members on testimonies, Travelgate).

    Given all the 'But Clinton did it!' defenses coming from the Republicans, this statement is remarkably ironic.

    Especially since a lot of the time, Clinton did not, in fact, do it too. (Take for example AttorneyGate- were were informed by the RWM that Clinton did the same thing. But we're informed by the OCR that he did not, in fact, do the same thing Bush did. At all.)

    There's also a question of evidence and scale. Clinton got caught lying about a blowjob. Bush and his administration have been caught lying about the rationale for war, the evidence for WMD, the number of US casualties sustained in the war, the progress of the war, the immediate aftermath of the war, the reason for firing eight US attorneys, blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent, the science behind global warming, several women's health issues, the care and attention paid to wounded veterans, torture, secret prisons, wiretapping...

    I could go on.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life

    Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment in the case of the White Water land deal?

    Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment at any time ever?

    Who said anything about Lewinsky? Lewinsky's name came up because of the open investigation regarding Paula Jone's - wait for it - sexual harassment lawsuit.

    You know this is one reason these discussions turn to crap - people are more interested in GOTCHA! moments than actually DISCUSSING.

    Yes. I know that. What i want to know is why asking about Lewinsky was relevent if when questioned about it she did not say she was sexually harrased by Clinton?

    Until Lewinsky says that Clinton harrased her, then the questioning was irrelevent.

    Then again, what Paula Jones had to do with the White Water Land deal is beyond me...

    wbBv3fj.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Ed, Bush lied about somthing that had no basis on his fitness to lead the united states.

    What are you talking about.

    Question. What does firing 8 U.S. Attornies for partisan political issues say about your ability to lead a nation? How about outing a covert intelligence operative with clandestine assets in many nuclear producing worlds? How about manipulating intelligence analysis regarding enemy weapons capability in order to gain support for a war?

    Do those things say anything about ones ability to lead a nation?


    What does getting a blowjob say about your ability to lead a nation?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    (Hint: You meant to say that Clinton lied about something that had no...)

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • AgemAgem Registered User
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    This is all OT, but it really does speak volumes on how folks can castrate one group for one thing (lying to investigators about when you spoke to reporters, firing people who serve at your behest) and then just sweep under the rug others (lying to investigators, coaching staff members on testimonies, Travelgate).

    Given all the 'But Clinton did it!' defenses coming from the Republicans, this statement is remarkably ironic.

    Especially since a lot of the time, Clinton did not, in fact, do it too. (Take for example AttorneyGate- were were informed by the RWM that Clinton did the same thing. But we're informed by the OCR that he did not, in fact, do the same thing Bush did. At all.)

    There's also a question of evidence and scale. Clinton got caught lying about a blowjob. Bush and his administration have been caught lying about the rationale for war, the evidence for WMD, the number of US casualties sustained in the war, the progress of the war, the immediate aftermath of the war, the reason for firing eight US attorneys, blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent, the science behind global warming, several women's health issues, the care and attention paid to wounded veterans, torture, secret prisons, wiretapping...

    I could go on.
    No, you obviously just don't get it. Clinton lied during a federal investigation of his blowjob. Who knows what else he could have lied about - perhaps about not secretly raping millions of American women who are too afraid to come forward? Why you damn liberal internet roughnecks refuse to acknowledge this as a distinct and highly probable possibility is clear evidence of your bias and inability to think clearly.

    And bringing up the whole WMD, firing US attorneys, blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent thing? Pfft. How cliche. Your arguments aren't original enough to be worth my time. Really, I would expect more out of you - but I guess that's what you get when you've been brainwashed by the liberal media.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So why are we talking about Clinton, again?

    On topic, I think the fact that we have no recourse other than an impeachment process that we never use to punish the president is a little troubling. It's not something to be approached lightly, but the fact that we can say "well, our commander in chief is doing highly highly unethical things but... what are you gonna do, impeach?" seems a bit off. I'd like this investigation to lead to some stricter controls on presidential powers in the future, rather than a bland acceptance that "well, the VP sucks too, oh well".

    Incidentally, if only Clinton had been impeached. We'd have had 10 years of Gore.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So why are we talking about Clinton, again?

    Because ED! is an ass.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    On topic, I think the fact that we have no recourse other than an impeachment process that we never use to punish the president is a little troubling. It's not something to be approached lightly, but the fact that we can say "well, our commander in chief is doing highly highly unethical things but... what are you gonna do, impeach?" seems a bit off. I'd like this investigation to lead to some stricter controls on presidential powers in the future, rather than a bland acceptance that "well, the VP sucks too, oh well".

    The power of the executive has been growing since World War Two, and it doesn't look like it is going to stop. Which...could be bad, in the long run. The branches are becoming increasingly unbalanced. I'd like to see a repeal of the War Powers Act and a lot of the other stuff granted to the Executive, just to be on the safe side.

    Of course, I'd also like a pony and transparent governance for everything except national security, but such things are not in the cards.

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes. I know that. What i want to know is why asking about Lewinsky was relevent if when questioned about it she did not say she was sexually harrased by Clinton?

    You'll have to ask independent counsel. As for Whitewater - Jone's case was something entirely different, but Starr had the latitude to persue that. And he did.
    Do those things say anything about ones ability to lead a nation?

    When you equivocate them down to nothing, and presume those were the ONLY political blunders - well then of course not!
    Really, I would expect more out of you - but I guess that's what you get when you've been brainwashed by the liberal media.

    That must be it.
    I'd like this investigation to lead to some stricter controls on presidential powers in the future, rather than a bland acceptance that "well, the VP sucks too, oh well".

    A prez can face jail time.
    Because ED! is an ass.

    Sorry, but I didn't bring it up - only responded to it. Continue playing.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Hey, don't expect too much of Ed. He can't even respond coherently to when someone points out his flaws.

    Indeed, of all us internet roughnecks should probably tone it down for him.

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hey, don't expect too much of Ed. He can't even respond coherently to when someone points out his flaws.

    Such as. . .

    Ill wait.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    (Hint: You meant to say that Clinton lied about something that had no...)

    Fuck. I wrote that post at 3 in the morning.

    At any rate Ed!, Can you actually mount any sort of a credible defense of gonzales' actions without mentioning Clinton or directing petty insults at the rest of us? Cuz that's what it's looking like right now.

    Spoiler:
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    (Hint: You meant to say that Clinton lied about something that had no...)

    Fuck. I wrote that post at 3 in the morning.

    At any rate Ed!, Can you actually mount any sort of a credible defense of gonzales' actions without mentioning Clinton or directing petty insults at the rest of us? Cuz that's what it's looking like right now.

    No, not really.

    I mean he can't even go back and read his own posts. If I didn't know better I'd swear he was trolling.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So why are we talking about Clinton, again?

    On topic, I think the fact that we have no recourse other than an impeachment process that we never use to punish the president is a little troubling. It's not something to be approached lightly, but the fact that we can say "well, our commander in chief is doing highly highly unethical things but... what are you gonna do, impeach?" seems a bit off. I'd like this investigation to lead to some stricter controls on presidential powers in the future, rather than a bland acceptance that "well, the VP sucks too, oh well".

    Incidentally, if only Clinton had been impeached. We'd have had 10 years of Gore.

    The other option is Censure, which Feingold proposed but never got anywhere, which doesn't have any teeth but is a very damning thing. Essentially, all that we have to rely on is the President actually caring about the will of the people and having anything besides contempt for the Congress in order to have the checks and balances work out well. Which is to say that when the President just doesn't give a fuck anymore the country is screwed for the remainder of the term.

    The best solution that could have come out of this would have been to get a veto-proof congress and make Bush into a lame duck like Johnson was. However, the mid-terms didn't have a hell of a lot of Republicans up for the chopping block, so we got stuck with a simple majority that still has to worry about the pen.

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Hey, don't expect too much of Ed. He can't even respond coherently to when someone points out his flaws.

    Such as. . .

    Ill wait.
    moniker wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    How can the firings NOT be political?

    Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.

    tea-1.jpg
  • supabeastsupabeast Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    So why are we talking about Clinton, again?

    On topic, I think the fact that we have no recourse other than an impeachment process that we never use to punish the president is a little troubling. It's not something to be approached lightly, but the fact that we can say "well, our commander in chief is doing highly highly unethical things but... what are you gonna do, impeach?" seems a bit off. I'd like this investigation to lead to some stricter controls on presidential powers in the future, rather than a bland acceptance that "well, the VP sucks too, oh well".

    Incidentally, if only Clinton had been impeached. We'd have had 10 years of Gore.

    The other option is Censure, which Feingold proposed but never got anywhere, which doesn't have any teeth but is a very damning thing. Essentially, all that we have to rely on is the President actually caring about the will of the people and having anything besides contempt for the Congress in order to have the checks and balances work out well. Which is to say that when the President just doesn't give a fuck anymore the country is screwed for the remainder of the term.

    The best solution that could have come out of this would have been to get a veto-proof congress and make Bush into a lame duck like Johnson was. However, the mid-terms didn't have a hell of a lot of Republicans up for the chopping block, so we got stuck with a simple majority that still has to worry about the pen.

    A veto-proof Congress would be nice, and things are moving in that direction at a pretty surprising pace, but even that doesn’t mean Bush won’t fuck everything up even more. When the surge is finally written off as a failure this fall we might very well see a supermajority pass an Iraq pullout bill, but what’s to say Bush won’t declare himself above it, hoping that his new buddies on the Supreme Court will defend their unitary executive. Or worse, bomb Iran the next damned day.

    What really has me scared is that Bush might do some sort of crazy shit that either leads to some kind of coup d’etat or makes the American people start taking John Locke a lot more seriously. I know it sounds crazy, but so do a lot of other things that have happened in this town since 2001.

  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    supabeast wrote: »

    A veto-proof Congress would be nice, and things are moving in that direction at a pretty surprising pace, but even that doesn’t mean Bush won’t fuck everything up even more. When the surge is finally written off as a failure this fall we might very well see a supermajority pass an Iraq pullout bill, but what’s to say Bush won’t declare himself above it, hoping that his new buddies on the Supreme Court will defend their unitary executive. Or worse, bomb Iran the next damned day.

    What really has me scared is that Bush might do some sort of crazy shit that either leads to some kind of coup d’etat or makes the American people start taking John Locke a lot more seriously. I know it sounds crazy, but so do a lot of other things that have happened in this town since 2001.

    Problem with that is that when does the "Surge" end? I mean I linked to an article in another post where they were talking of maintaining the SURGE indefinately.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    supabeast wrote: »

    A veto-proof Congress would be nice, and things are moving in that direction at a pretty surprising pace, but even that doesn’t mean Bush won’t fuck everything up even more. When the surge is finally written off as a failure this fall we might very well see a supermajority pass an Iraq pullout bill, but what’s to say Bush won’t declare himself above it, hoping that his new buddies on the Supreme Court will defend their unitary executive. Or worse, bomb Iran the next damned day.

    What really has me scared is that Bush might do some sort of crazy shit that either leads to some kind of coup d’etat or makes the American people start taking John Locke a lot more seriously. I know it sounds crazy, but so do a lot of other things that have happened in this town since 2001.

    Problem with that is that when does the "Surge" end? I mean I linked to an article in another post where they were talking of maintaining the SURGE indefinately.

    On the next Iraqi tet offensive. When's the Islamic New Year?

    tea-1.jpg
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    At any rate Ed!, Can you actually mount any sort of a credible defense of gonzales' actions without mentioning Clinton or directing petty insults at the rest of us? Cuz that's what it's looking like right now.

    Petty insults - sorry, but those arent coming from my side of the computer mate. I responded negatively to one person in one reply. Poor form on my part but hey - sometimes the internet-jockeys get to ya.

    As for defense of the AG's actions - theres none needed (and the "Clinton" example wasnt used in defense of this, but was a seperate discussion entirely. As for why bring it up or argue it further - because some folks seem to have short term memories, and so when I hear "Oh god - I cant believe this is happening in our govt." - sometimes reminding folks about the "business as usual" IS a legitimate argument). You've yet to have anyone testify to the illegality of the firings. Im sure there are some pretty bright people on this forum, but Im going to go ahead and defer to individuals who actually WORK in the Justice Dept. and their opinions on if anything was actually wrong here.
    Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.

    Again though, firing someone for cause can still be construed as being "political" - if they dont fit in with your policy goals. If the JD is aggresively pursuing child porn peddlers, and you have Sally Lawgiver in CA who isnt on the same page - why shouldnt you fire her? And why wouldnt that be a political firing, one that is for cause. The problem is the language - say "political" - and people assume it punitive; when it doesnt have to be so.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    At any rate Ed!, Can you actually mount any sort of a credible defense of gonzales' actions without mentioning Clinton or directing petty insults at the rest of us? Cuz that's what it's looking like right now.

    Petty insults - sorry, but those arent coming from my side of the computer mate. I responded negatively to one person in one reply. Poor form on my part but hey - sometimes the internet-jockeys get to ya.

    As for defense of the AG's actions - theres none needed (and the "Clinton" example wasnt used in defense of this, but was a seperate discussion entirely. As for why bring it up or argue it further - because some folks seem to have short term memories, and so when I hear "Oh god - I cant believe this is happening in our govt." - sometimes reminding folks about the "business as usual" IS a legitimate argument). You've yet to have anyone testify to the illegality of the firings. Im sure there are some pretty bright people on this forum, but Im going to go ahead and defer to individuals who actually WORK in the Justice Dept. and their opinions on if anything was actually wrong here.
    Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.

    Again though, firing someone for cause can still be construed as being "political" - if they dont fit in with your policy goals. If the JD is aggresively pursuing child porn peddlers, and you have Sally Lawgiver in CA who isnt on the same page - why shouldnt you fire her? And why wouldnt that be a political firing, one that is for cause. The problem is the language - say "political" - and people assume it punitive; when it doesnt have to be so.
    I don't know about illegal, but I think it's really, really hard to deny that firing someone for cause who got a good performance review because they wouldn't file charges against a member of the opposing party immediately before elections is probably unethical, and definitely worthy of investigation.

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    At any rate Ed!, Can you actually mount any sort of a credible defense of gonzales' actions without mentioning Clinton or directing petty insults at the rest of us? Cuz that's what it's looking like right now.

    Petty insults - sorry, but those arent coming from my side of the computer mate. I responded negatively to one person in one reply. Poor form on my part but hey - sometimes the internet-jockeys get to ya.

    As for defense of the AG's actions - theres none needed (and the "Clinton" example wasnt used in defense of this, but was a seperate discussion entirely. As for why bring it up or argue it further - because some folks seem to have short term memories, and so when I hear "Oh god - I cant believe this is happening in our govt." - sometimes reminding folks about the "business as usual" IS a legitimate argument). You've yet to have anyone testify to the illegality of the firings. Im sure there are some pretty bright people on this forum, but Im going to go ahead and defer to individuals who actually WORK in the Justice Dept. and their opinions on if anything was actually wrong here.
    Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.

    Again though, firing someone for cause can still be construed as being "political" - if they dont fit in with your policy goals. If the JD is aggresively pursuing child porn peddlers, and you have Sally Lawgiver in CA who isnt on the same page - why shouldnt you fire her? And why wouldnt that be a political firing, one that is for cause. The problem is the language - say "political" - and people assume it punitive; when it doesnt have to be so.

    You're not quite getting what we mean when we say "political."

    We're not talking about gay marriage or abortion or the war or any shit like that. We're talking about a) Pressing attourneys to take cases specifically to smear political opponents, and b) getting rid of attourneys who are investigating Republicans. This is about trying to fire attourneys so that the law will be applied to Democratic politicians and their voter base, but not Republicans.

    The administration is trying to control who gets investigated for what on the basis of what political leanings they have, and THAT is why people are concerned.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't see how anyone, even someone as marginally functional as ED, can't see the difference in those two situations.

    Bringing in new prosecutors to focus on your domestic agenda is important... clearly if the last administration is focused on prosecuting pot smokers and you want your administration to focus on white collar crime, then a changing of the guard is entirely appropriate.

    Firing your attorney's midway through your presidency for not being loyal cronies is just corrupt... I mean on par with Tammany Hall corrupt. The prosecutors are not Bush's attack dogs, designed to go after whomever he wants them to... yes, they are focused on implimenting his agenda, but not at the expense of the law.

    Besides, by the start of his second term did Bush even HAVE a domestic agenda?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »

    Besides, by the start of his second term did Bush even HAVE a domestic agenda?

    Scaring the fuck out of the nation and keeping the fags from marrying come to mind.

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't know about illegal, but I think it's really, really hard to deny that firing someone for cause who got a good performance review because they wouldn't file charges against a member of the opposing party immediately before elections is probably unethical, and definitely worthy of investigation.
    CNN wrote:
    In addition, Sampson testified that he had no knowledge that the firings were connected to ongoing corruption cases. "To my knowledge, no U.S. attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a particular reason," Sampson said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/fired.attorneys/index.html

    If you have information that this guy doesnt, you owe it to this country to step forward.
    You're not quite getting what we mean when we say "political."

    Oh no I get it - please dont assume that the reason I disagree is because I dont "get it".
    We're not talking about gay marriage or abortion or the war or any shit like that. We're talking about a) Pressing attourneys to take cases specifically to smear political opponents, and b) getting rid of attourneys who are investigating Republicans. This is about trying to fire attourneys so that the law will be applied to Democratic politicians and their voter base, but not Republicans.

    See my response to Thanatos above. So far I only see you folks saying the same things blogs and others were saying BEFORE this guy testified, and so far hes the only one whos testified about the process. He DIDNT say what you, and the senate was salivating and hoping he would say - "They were fired because they werent good republicans" - and instead said "Hey they were fired because we CAN fire them - and as far as I knew - being someone actually involved in the entire process - not a single one was fired because they refused to fall in line. Oh but one was fired so we could hook Karl up - whats that. . .not interesed in that guy. . .ok nvm then."
    This is a benign rather than sinister story, and I know that some may be indisposed to accept it. But it is the truth as I observed and experienced it.

    Again - if you all know the REAL story. . .please let Congress know.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote:
    The problem is the language - say "political" - and people assume it punitive; when it doesnt have to be so.

    Dude, this is backwards. Fire Sally Lawgiver for 'political' reasons and her resume is mostly peachy. Fire her for 'cause' and it's punitive and a black mark, and it must be so.

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    You're not quite getting what we mean when we say "political."

    Oh no I get it - please dont assume that the reason I disagree is because I dont "get it".

    Yet you seem to keep conflating policy issues with partisan issues and don't seem to recognize any questions raised about the firings as legitimate for some reason. It's all 'bullshit by the Dems' rather than the Congress acting in oversight. Carol Lam put Duke Cunningham behind bars and now she's out of a job due to 'performance issues.' That didn't pique your curiousity in the slightest? You didn't suspect any sort of ulterior motive behind it? Would that hold true if the little (D) and (R)'s had been switched?
    So far I only see you folks saying the same things blogs and others were saying BEFORE this guy testified, and so far hes the only one whos testified about the process. He DIDNT say what you, and the senate was salivating and hoping he would say - "They were fired because they werent good republicans" - and instead said "Hey they were fired because we CAN fire them - and as far as I knew - being someone actually involved in the entire process - not a single one was fired because they refused to fall in line. Oh but one was fired so we could hook Karl up - whats that. . .not interesed in that guy. . .ok nvm then."

    Nope, he didn't, but his answers regarding some of the firings (Carol Lam for one) were far from satisfactory. Sure is nice to have something regarding this on the record, though, isn't it?
    This is a benign rather than sinister story, and I know that some may be indisposed to accept it. But it is the truth as I observed and experienced it.

    Again - if you all know the REAL story. . .please let Congress know.

    We don't. Neither does Congress. That's the problem. I honestly don't understand why you feel an investigation or Congressional hearing is illegitimate.

    tea-1.jpg
  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    I honestly don't understand why you feel an investigation or Congressional hearing isn't justified.

    Because, as we saw during the Clinton hearings, being investigated means that you're guilty. If the investigation doesn't turn up anything, or ends in conviction of a lesser offense, then you were a slick bastard that covered your tracks.

    I swear to god I don't know if I'm being sarcastic.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others. I don't know what more evidence you need that firing them for cause was, at best, unethical.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others. I don't know what more evidence you need that firing them for cause was, at best, unethical.


    "loyal bushies"

    there also might be other issues. Current comments from WH officials, staffers, and convicted felons suggest that the WH is using a non-WH email system to run their correspondence.

    Which is also illegal.

    Other things to note.

    1) In order to fire an a federal attorny in these positions, the President of the United States of America has to make the decision. No other person has the authority or may be delegated the authority to do so.

    2) It is very illegal to hinder a federal investigation, which firing an attorny with the intent to place someone less scrupulus on the court certianly qualifies. If anyone had bothered to look at the people appointed, it is clear they easily fit the bill

    As well, we have allegations coming out of partisan manipulation with the civil rights division in order to fulfill a partisan agenda designed to move votes towards the Republican party as well as allegations concerning the handling of the big tobacco case.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Its not an unreasonable request - IF its based on genuine information that wrongdoing has occured. However, based on Fitzgeralds investigations and the lefts general inability to control itself in regards to digging up scandal - real or not - in the White House, its not a stretch of the imagination to think any congressional investigation is partisan and political (the punitive BAD kind). THAT is the problem in my eyes.
    You didn't suspect any sort of ulterior motive behind it? Would that hold true if the little (D) and (R)'s had been switched?

    So they should have kept Lam on because to let her go would have made it look like a revenge firing? How does that make any sense? Also, one would think that with the information that was made public by the JD that something/someone would have come forward that advanced this notion.
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others.

    Which emails? Do you have a link to this one in particular?

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    What emails? Do you fucking live in a hole, got it was fucking reported on every major news network. NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, every affilaite that fucking gets AP stories, which is fucking everyone

    But here is a direct link to an image of the emails in question so you really cant feign ignorance anymore.

    wbBv3fj.png
Sign In or Register to comment.