or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Long Will Gonzales Last
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Long Will Gonzales Last

post #1 of 120
Thread Starter 
I am wondering how long it will be before the Attorney General is ousted to help save face for GW.
post #2 of 120
W? Saving face? Surely you jest... he is not constrained by such things!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #3 of 120
I think it depends on how he handles the hearings. Bush essentially implied that yesterday in his statement.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 120
I find it hilarious that Bush last night complained that the Department of Justice has already provided over 3000 pages of documents to Congress.

Everyone realizes that the Clinton Administration was forced by a Republican congress to provide an average of 4000 pages of documents for EVERY DAY CONGRESS WAS IN SESSION, right? Right?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #5 of 120
I've also notice that suddenly the Republicans are huge fans of the sanctity of the president's staff and the idea that the risk of having to testify would poison relations in the White House. I mean if your political advisor has to testify before Congress under oath, how are you going to be able to continue to, uh, do politics? National security!

Was there anyone on Clinton's staff that didn't have to testify before Congress, at one point or another?

Oh yeah, but that was about the grave matter of blow jobs and made up stuff. Firing US attorneys for not agreeing to be used as a political tool by the
White House and Republican party is small potatoes, compared to that.

So when you register as a Republican, is their a little clinic in the back where they surgically remove your sense of shame?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #6 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I've also notice that suddenly the Republicans are huge fans of the sanctity of the president's staff and the idea that the risk of having to testify would poison relations in the White House. I mean if your political advisor has to testify before Congress under oath, how are you going to be able to continue to, uh, do politics? National security!

Was there anyone on Clinton's staff that didn't have to testify before Congress, at one point or another?

Yeah but Bush changed the tone.
post #7 of 120
Certainly did.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #8 of 120
Hasn't become much of a story yet, but I think it will: turns out there is an 18 day gap in the emails that have been shown to Congress.

The gap is mid-November to early December, a time-frame which coincides with when we know that the White House and Justice were discussing which attorneys to fire and how to control any political fallout.

When asked about it, Tony Snow said "I've been led to believe that there's a good response for it, and I'm going to let you ask them (DOJ) because they're going to have an answer."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #9 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I've also notice that suddenly the Republicans are huge fans of the sanctity of the president's staff and the idea that the risk of having to testify would poison relations in the White House. I mean if your political advisor has to testify before Congress under oath, how are you going to be able to continue to, uh, do politics? National security!

Was there anyone on Clinton's staff that didn't have to testify before Congress, at one point or another?

Oh yeah, but that was about the grave matter of blow jobs and made up stuff. Firing US attorneys for not agreeing to be used as a political tool by the
White House and Republican party is small potatoes, compared to that.

So when you register as a Republican, is their a little clinic in the back where they surgically remove your sense of shame?

So who is "but Clinton"ing now.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #10 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So who is "but Clinton"ing now.

I want you to think this through with me.

When Bush apologists respond to criticism of his administration with "buh, buh buh CLINTON!" we mock that because rehashing Clinton's supposed crimes has no bearing on what Bush is doing now, and because the obsession with teh Clenis is funny and pathetic.

When the Bush administration and Republicans use arguments to defend the administration that flatly contradict the arguments they used to attack Clinton, and in both cases make those arguments with a sort of fierce absolutism and tone of sneering contempt, we mock that because it is staggeringly hypocritical.

You can call both those things "but Clinton" formulations if you wish, but that would imply you don't really know what words mean.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #11 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I want you to think this through with me.

When Bush apologists respond to criticism of his administration with "buh, buh buh CLINTON!" we mock that because rehashing Clinton's supposed crimes has no bearing on what Bush is doing now, and because the obsession with teh Clenis is funny and pathetic.

When the Bush administration and Republicans use arguments to defend the administration that flatly contradict the arguments they used to attack Clinton, and in both cases make those arguments with a sort of fierce absolutism and tone of sneering contempt, we mock that because it is staggeringly hypocritical.

You can call both those things "but Clinton" formulations if you wish, but that would imply you don't really know what words mean.

As I tried to get across in the other thread, before that thread got derailed... both sides have treated the other side unfairly. Both Bush and Clinton have been very very bad for the country. In fact, the government itself is bad for the country, no matter who is in power. Liberals screamed about the very things they are doing to Bush currently. Conservatives are screaming about the very same things that they did to Clinton. The criticisms of Bush have become funny and pathetic and staggeringly hypocritical in light of Bill, Hillary, William Jefferson, Harry Reid land deals, Pelosi Min Wage issues, et al. And the reverse it true as well- Mark Foley, the tens of Republican criminals that have been sacked from Congress... It's all bovine scatology. Truckloads. The lowest common denominator has been reached- power for the sake of power, and no class when it comes to dealing with ideological differences. Discourse is almost dead. And both parties are to blame.

The Clinton "legacy" and record are part of recent history, ditto for Bush. Both are fair game for ridicule and contempt. Neither the far left or far right has much to be proud of these days.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #12 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

As I tried to get across in the other thread, before that thread got derailed... both sides have treated the other side unfairly. Both Bush and Clinton have been very very bad for the country. In fact, the government itself is bad for the country, no matter who is in power. Liberals screamed about the very things they are doing to Bush currently. Conservatives are screaming about the very same things that they did to Clinton. The criticisms of Bush have become funny and pathetic and staggeringly hypocritical in light of Bill, Hillary, William Jefferson, Harry Reid land deals, Pelosi Min Wage issues, et al. And the reverse it true as well- Mark Foley, the tens of Republican criminals that have been sacked from Congress... It's all bovine scatology. Truckloads. The lowest common denominator has been reached- power for the sake of power, and no class when it comes to dealing with ideological differences. Discourse is almost dead. And both parties are to blame.

The Clinton "legacy" and record are part of recent history, ditto for Bush. Both are fair game for ridicule and contempt. Neither the far left or far right has much to be proud of these days.

Well but see the point you keep missing is that a very subjective statement like that is just your opinion. There are lots of us out there who think Clinton was very good for the country. Not really something you can claim for Bush given his approval rating.

By the way just so you know I'm registered independant. Because I don't see only good in the democrats. But I still maintain Bush is the worst.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

As I tried to get across in the other thread, before that thread got derailed... both sides have treated the other side unfairly. Both Bush and Clinton have been very very bad for the country. In fact, the government itself is bad for the country, no matter who is in power. Liberals screamed about the very things they are doing to Bush currently. Conservatives are screaming about the very same things that they did to Clinton. The criticisms of Bush have become funny and pathetic and staggeringly hypocritical in light of Bill, Hillary, William Jefferson, Harry Reid land deals, Pelosi Min Wage issues, et al. And the reverse it true as well- Mark Foley, the tens of Republican criminals that have been sacked from Congress... It's all bovine scatology. Truckloads. The lowest common denominator has been reached- power for the sake of power, and no class when it comes to dealing with ideological differences. Discourse is almost dead. And both parties are to blame.

The Clinton "legacy" and record are part of recent history, ditto for Bush. Both are fair game for ridicule and contempt. Neither the far left or far right has much to be proud of these days.

Except all of that is predicated on the quite mad assumption that things like the fiasco in Iraq, the failure in New Orleans and the crony driven debasing of FEMA, the belligerent instance on unmonitored access to the private information of US citizens (which we now know was being systematically abused by the FBI), the endless "signing statements" that in effect declare the President bound only by the laws he chooses to obey, secret prisons, limitless detention without charges, the embrace of torture as an instrument of intelligence gathering, the abuse of the Justice Department as a tool of political attack, the abuse of classified information as a tool of political attack, and the fall-out from the systematic attempt to turn the entire lobbying industry into a tool of political attack and profiteering (the K Street project, Abramoff, et al) are the functional equivalent of "Bill and Hillary" (Bill and Hillary what? Haircut-gate? Travel-gate? Killing Vince Foster? The judged by the court to be without merit White Water "scandal"? "Trashing the White House"? Because if you check sources outside of the feverswamps of wingnuttia you'll learn that all of those are made up.), a single corrupt Democratic congressman, and a ludicrously contrived "scandal" involving Reid's property.

Exempting America Samoa from the minimum wage bill is bullshit, but look at the first list again and tell me how that stacks up against the systematic abuse of the mechanisms of government for consolidating political power involving the highest possible stakes in matters of the rule of law, national security and the prosecution of a war.

It's just so bizarre, this constant appeal to such an on-the-face-of-it ludicrous equivalency: "The Democrats think Bush misled us into a war that he then grotesquely mishandled, leading to the current quagmire, and the Republicans thought Bill 'n Hillary were sleazy! Tit for tat! The Democrats think giving Bush nearly unlimited powers of surveillance without any judicial or Congressional oversight is a terrible idea! But Harry Reid transfered ownership of a house at no profit to himself to his own holding company, so it's a wash! The Republicans systematically endeavored to turn lobbying into an arm of the Republican party and pay for play cash machine, but I can name a single corrupt Democratic congressman with ties to nothing but his own greed, so what's good for the goose! It appears that the Bush admin purged US attorneys that refused to be enthusiastic enough about bringing indictments against Democrats or circumspect enough about bringing indictments against Republicans, but some winger fantasy about teh Clenis! So they all do it!"

After spending the entire Clinton administration generating an endless series of utterly baseless "scandals" (and I don't mean he said-she said baseless, I mean the factual record, utterly-without-merit-made-up-never-happened-100%-bullshit), the right now turns around and claims that being fucking dismayed at something like the cluster-fuck of Iraq is somehow the other side of that coin, which simultaneously legitimizes the gravity of the fictional Clinton attacks and trivializes the enormity of what is unfolding in the Bush White House.

But, as always, blow-jobs, 30,000 American dead, they're obviously just the same.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #14 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

By the way just so you know I'm registered independant.

Can you vote in the party primaries in Oregon as an independent?
post #15 of 120
Tony Snow - 1998:
Quote:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #16 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Tony Snow - 1998:

Wow. That is a great quote. Ahhhh, how the wheel turns.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #17 of 120
As we consider the implications of the current scandal, it might be instructive to take a look at a study that was done reviewing the rate of investigation, under the Bush Justice Department, of Dems vs. Republicans.

As the study concludes:

Quote:
As is indicated by Table 1, across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80% to 18%) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers. This was so even though, throughout the nation, Democrat elected officials outnumber Republican elected officials at the rate of only 50% to 41%. Nine percent of elected officials are Independent/Other.

Wow, those Dems must be really really corrupt! Funny how the rate of indictment tells a different story (apparently the Bush take-over of the Judicial isn't complete), but that's not really the point.

"Investigations" are great tools in a close race, and of course there is always the need to prop up the ceaseless talk of "voter fraud", which never seems to really amount to anything but which gets alleged over and over again by Republicans eager to justify voter suppression techniques.

But....um......Nancy Pelosi's jet! Same difference!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #18 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Can you vote in the party primaries in Oregon as an independent?

Sometimes yes sometimes no. It depends.

From the oregon voting guide :


" Major political parties (Democratic & Republican) choose who they want to run for office by having a Primary Election. The Primary Election is held every even-numbered year on the third Tuesday in May.

If you are registered as a member of a major political party, you can vote in that party’s Primary Election.

Sometimes a major political party will open its Primary Election to voters who are not registered as a member of any political party (non-affiliated voters). Non-affiliated voters will be notified by mail if a party opens its Primary Election.

If neither major political party opens its Primary Election, all non-affiliated voters will automatically receive a ballot with all measures and nonpartisan contests (for example: judges, district attorneys, etc.) "

What's happening this time? I don't know yet.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I've also notice that suddenly the Republicans are huge fans of the sanctity of the president's staff and the idea that the risk of having to testify would poison relations in the White House. I mean if your political advisor has to testify before Congress under oath, how are you going to be able to continue to, uh, do politics? National security!

Was there anyone on Clinton's staff that didn't have to testify before Congress, at one point or another?

Oh yeah, but that was about the grave matter of blow jobs and made up stuff. Firing US attorneys for not agreeing to be used as a political tool by the
White House and Republican party is small potatoes, compared to that.

So when you register as a Republican, is their a little clinic in the back where they surgically remove your sense of shame?

Why are you assuming that "Republicans" are huge fans of the sancity of the President's staff? Who do you mean exactly? Bush? Congress? Rank and file? Bush is going to claim exec. privledge. We'll see if it holds up or not.

Quote:
Firing US attorneys for not agreeing to be used as a political tool by the
White House

That hasn't been proven in any way. It's also subject to interpretation, because in a sense ALL US Attorneys are political tools. They're political appointees. Always have been.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 120
Well it seems like the Whithouse is trying to cover up something.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17723982/


And why the hell do we have a president who's at odds with lawmakers anyway?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well it seems like the Whithouse is trying to cover up something.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17723982/


And why the hell do we have a president who's at odds with lawmakers anyway?

1. Why?

2. Hasn't every President been at odds with lawmakers? Like...every single one...especially when Congress is controlled by the opposition party?


Gentlemen...you can't fight in here! This is CONGRESS!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Why?

2. Hasn't every President been at odds with lawmakers? Like...every single one...especially when Congress is controlled by the opposition party?


Gentlemen...you can't fight in here! This is CONGRESS!

Working my way backwards.

No " It's The War Room! ".

Not like this they haven't.

I'm not the only one with questions.

From the article :

" Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Congress had a right and a duty to find out why the U.S. attorneys were fired but that the White House was trying to hide the truth.

“I don’t know why they are so desperate to keep all this behind closed doors, not to have people under oath, not to have transcripts,” he said Wednesday in an interview with MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell. "
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #23 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Working my way backwards.

No " It's The War Room! ".

Not like this they haven't.

I'm not the only one with questions.

From the article :

" Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Congress had a right and a duty to find out why the U.S. attorneys were fired but that the White House was trying to hide the truth.

“I don’t know why they are so desperate to keep all this behind closed doors, not to have people under oath, not to have transcripts,” he said Wednesday in an interview with MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell. "



Working my way forwards:

1. That's subjective. Nearly Every President goes to war with Congress over something.

2. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy! Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass what he says.

jimmac, there is no story here. Whether you like it or not, the President can fire US Attorneys...even for political reasons. There is not a shred of evidence that shows the Admin fired them for getting to close to Republicans in investigations. Not a shred.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



Working my way forwards:

1. That's subjective. Nearly Every President goes to war with Congress over something.

2. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy! Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass what he says.

jimmac, there is no story here. Whether you like it or not, the President can fire US Attorneys...even for political reasons. There is not a shred of evidence that shows the Admin fired them for getting to close to Republicans in investigations. Not a shred.

Yeah I told myself you wouldn't like Leahy for some reason.

That's your favorite counter to an argument. You simply don't like the source.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



Working my way forwards:

1. That's subjective. Nearly Every President goes to war with Congress over something.

2. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy! Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass what he says.

jimmac, there is no story here. Whether you like it or not, the President can fire US Attorneys...even for political reasons. There is not a shred of evidence that shows the Admin fired them for getting to close to Republicans in investigations. Not a shred.

How do you know that there is not a shred of evidence? Maybe that's why congress wants these people to testify under oath.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #26 of 120
For the senate hearings I'd suggest the following;

The MC (Ryan);



The Ripper (Simon);



The Babe (Paula);



The Other One (Randy);

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #27 of 120
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah I told myself you wouldn't like Leahy for some reason.

That's your favorite counter to an argument. You simply don't like the source.

Come on jimmac. He's a rabid partisan in the opposition. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the fact remains.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo View Post

How do you know that there is not a shred of evidence? Maybe that's why congress wants these people to testify under oath.

So there is secret evidence that they know about? Right.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Some more info.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17746777/


You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious: It doesn't matter. None of it does. The only thing that would make this a true "scandal" is if the Bush Administration replaced prosecutors who were investigating Republicans, "getting too close" as it were. If evidence of that emerges, it's totally different.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious: It doesn't matter. None of it does. The only thing that would make this a true "scandal" is if the Bush Administration replaced prosecutors who were investigating Republicans, "getting too close" as it were. If evidence of that emerges, it's totally different.

We'll see won't we?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/...ngs/index.html
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #32 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

We'll see won't we?

Yes, we will. Of course, that statement you made means that you acknoweldge the rest of this is just partisan crap.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, we will. Of course, that statement you made means that you acknoweldge the rest of this is just partisan crap.

They're not done yet. It really smells to me like there's something to hide.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They're not done yet. It really smells to me like there's something to hide.

But..why does it "smell" like that? Let me guess...because Bush won't let them tesitfy under oath? I mean, if they have nothing to hide, why not let them do it, right?

It's amazing to me...literally amazing that you can make this argument. I've heard several people do so over the past few days. While making that argument, those same people are arguing for enemy combatant access to our courts. Why "innocent until proven guilty" for them, but not for this situation?

The very same point applies to the left's demonization of the NSA program. Why do we not hear "but I have nothing to hide...who cares if the NSA is listening?" It's the same logic as you're applying to the Attorneys "Scandal."

Imagine if our criminal justice system ran this way. After all, you MUST be guilty if you invoke your 5th Amendment rights or otherwise refuse to testify! Right to remain silent as dictated by Miranda? Nope..you'd talk if you had nothing to hide! It's not like the cops would ever try to coerce a a confession out of you, or an ADA would lure you into committing perjury, right? \
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But..why does it "smell" like that? Let me guess...because Bush won't let them tesitfy under oath? I mean, if they have nothing to hide, why not let them do it, right?

It's amazing to me...literally amazing that you can make this argument. I've heard several people do so over the past few days. While making that argument, those same people are arguing for enemy combatant access to our courts. Why "innocent until proven guilty" for them, but not for this situation?

The very same point applies to the left's demonization of the NSA program. Why do we not hear "but I have nothing to hide...who cares if the NSA is listening?" It's the same logic as you're applying to the Attorneys "Scandal."

Imagine if our criminal justice system ran this way. After all, you MUST be guilty if you invoke your 5th Amendment rights or otherwise refuse to testify! Right to remain silent as dictated by Miranda? Nope..you'd talk if you had nothing to hide! It's not like the cops would ever try to coerce a a confession out of you, or an ADA would lure you into committing perjury, right? \

You still really haven't given a reason not to in this context. And you sound worried.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You still really haven't given a reason not to in this context. And you sound worried.

You have to be kidding me with that response. Do you care to address ANYTHING I said?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #37 of 120
Gonz will at until Bush is through with him.

:shrug:
post #38 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Gonz will at until Bush is through with him.

:shrug:

Kinda like all Presidential appointees, then...huh?

<shrug>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 120
Yea, kinda like rummy.

:shrug:
post #40 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Yea, kinda like rummy.

:shrug:

Alright then. Where are you going with this?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Long Will Gonzales Last