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

How Long Will Gonzales Last - Page 3

post #81 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

1) The point is that there is some question as to whether you can plead the 5th *simply* because you don't want to talk. The 5th protects individuals from self-incrimination, not talking.

Hmm? There's a pretty broad right not to talk in a legal setting if you're talking about your own actions and anything that's potentially illegal. It seems pretty clear that testifying before Congress, about an issue that she is personally involved in, is covered by this if she feels she could be putting herself at risk. Her lawyer wrote a silly brief, for sure, but that doesn't mean you have to talk. I personally think someone like her probably could be given immunity, but if they don't give it to her, she shouldn't have to talk.
post #82 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

1) The point is that there is some question as to whether you can plead the 5th *simply* because you don't want to talk. The 5th protects individuals from self-incrimination, not talking.

2) For high-ranking members of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to refuse to testify because they don't want to incriminate themselves is pretty god damned sad.

3) I wish that every time a new set of talking points came down the pike there were bumper stickers. I'd love to start collecting them. Political theater! Support the troops! But Bill Clinton! Serial flip-flopper!

IANAL but if there is any scenario that someone could come under prosecution for testifying under oath then they can plead the 5th. You and the Congress or anyone else can't take that away. UNLESS they are given immunity. Then they can be compelled to testify. But the congress can't grant that immunity. Why would the justice department? So everyone clams up.
post #83 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I've seen Clinton fishing. And it ain't pretty. The co-king of whoppers trying to catch a whopper.

" Clinton " " Clinton " " Clinton "

Clinton " Clinton " Clinton "

Clinton " Clinton "Clinton "

God! It's like a broken record with you guys! He's been out of office for going on 7 years now and you still use him in your arguments. He really must have scared the wingnut right!

Ps. Probably because he was so sucessful!

If Adda hadn't brought him up you would have.

PPS. I hope we have another one!

At least when we mention Bush he's still currently in office!
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 #84 of 120
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I would assume that either this witness does not want to incriminate herself or she is scared that she will not receive due process. If it is the former, then we have a problem. If it is the latter, then the congress is out of hand and we have another problem.


Some good, good, good (meaning very long) reading on the 5th (and a good time to use Speech):


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html
(the most relevant part is about 1/5 of the way down; would have thought the government would have made searching easier... not!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #85 of 120
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I would assume that either this witness does not want to incriminate herself or she is scared that she will not receive due process. If it is the former, then we have a problem. If it is the latter, then the congress is out of hand and we have another problem.

However, in popular terms, pleading the fifth means refusing to incriminate yourself, so I think we have a guilty party here. Done deal.


Some good, good, good (meaning very long) reading on the 5th (and a good time to use Speech):


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html
(the most relevant part is about 1/5 of the way down; would have thought the government would have made searching easier... not!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #86 of 120
... yea.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #87 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" Clinton " " Clinton " " Clinton "

Clinton " Clinton " Clinton "

Clinton " Clinton "Clinton "

God! It's like a broken record with you guys! He's been out of office for going on 7 years now and you still use him in your arguments. He really must have scared the wingnut right!

Ps. Probably because he was so sucessful!

If Adda hadn't brought him up you would have.

PPS. I hope we have another one!

At least when we mention Bush he's still currently in office!

Weak, dude. Weak.

*Yawn*
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Weak, dude. Weak.

*Yawn*

Sorry Cartman should be saying : " Right on dude! "

Oh! Are you tired? Well maybe you should take a time out and napp for awhile.
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 #89 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry Cartman should be saying : " Right on dude! "

Oh! Are you tired? Well maybe you should take a time out and napp for awhile.



Oh, go bump your "Political Theater" thread..
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #90 of 120
Well, this quote from what will apparently be Sampson's prepared remarks really struck me.


Quote:
"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

I think that attitude is precisely the problem.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #91 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post



Oh, go bump your "Political Theater" thread..


A quote from that movie you're so fond of ( probably made before you were born ).

" I fart in your general direction ".
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 #92 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

A quote from that movie you're so fond of ( probably made before you were born ).

" I fart in your general direction ".

Why is everything about age with you?
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 #93 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Why is everything about age with you?


Well. I've learned a lot in my time here. As anyone will tell you at my age you really gain some perspective in your 50's. You also know enough to be humble that you don't know everything even when you think you do.

There's nothing wrong with being young. It's just when I hear someone who is full of himself or herself talking with great candor at having reached X age it kind of makes me laugh. I remember those days and a lesson learned well. You can have a great number of experiences in a short amount of time but it still takes time to corrrelate the data ( or connect the dots ).

Experience is nothing without exisitence.

As a matter of fact too much experience in a short amount of time can be harmful.

There's a certain clairity of thought that comes to you once you get past all the youthful angst.

There's really no way to fully explain it to you except maybe with this.

Just take it for granted we all still have a lot to learn.
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 #94 of 120
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

This stuff just keeps percolating below the surface.
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 #95 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well. I've learned a lot in my time here. As anyone will tell you at my age you really gain some perspective in your 50's. You also know enough to be humble that you don't know everything even when you think you do.

There's nothing wrong with being young. It's just when I hear someone who is full of himself or herself talking with great candor at having reached X age it kind of makes me laugh. I remember those days and a lesson learned well. You can have a great number of experiences in a short amount of time but it still takes time to corrrelate the data ( or connect the dots ).

Experience is nothing without exisitence.

As a matter of fact too much experience in a short amount of time can be harmful.

There's a certain clairity of thought that comes to you once you get past all the youthful angst.

There's really no way to fully explain it to you except maybe with this.

Just take it for granted we all still have a lot to learn.


And people in their 70's think YOU'RE the naive one. It's all relative. To follow, the reason I asked you that was you seem to invoke your almighty age in al ost every thread. It's getting...well, old.
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 #96 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And people in their 70's think YOU'RE the naive one. It's all relative. To follow, the reason I asked you that was you seem to invoke your almighty age in al ost every thread. It's getting...well, old.

SDW! Old buddy!

Boy it's refreshing talking to you after talking to that snore!

Well you know I didn't really want to step on anyone's young tender toes but he sounded to me like a young guy ( who has some really.......different ideas ) and is full of himself.

In other words a lot to learn.

As far as someone 70 thinking I'm naive I believe I've covered that in my last post.
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 #97 of 120
Now that that is clear... it is beginning to look like Speedy Gonzales will have to exit at some point. He no look too good. The sooner the better.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #98 of 120
Pretty surprising that he's last this long. I just read this at yahoo's reuters feed. The RNC has deleted some of the subpoenaed emails. It would seem like something is attempted to be covered up (not surprising, from this administration which loves secrecy).

It's stated in the article that the RNC has a policy of auto-deleting every email after 30 days. But I'd like to compare this to my own company's experience with lawsuits. At the first whiff that my company might be sued, our lawyers sent out a company memo telling everyone not to delete anything related to the lawsuit; and a separate conversation was had with IT, to make sure we were keeping all the records. We, as a company, had nothing to hide. The white house certainly does have plenty of things which the governed needn't know about. But what's troubling is that emails related to these firings are certainly not part of what the public does not have the right to; congress has been pretty overt in its demand for information regarding this potential scandal, and they have the authority to be demanding in this case.

this should provide the democrats some basis for their own round of firings. start with the IT guys who carried out the deletions, see if they can roll against any one higher up.
post #99 of 120
post #100 of 120
Gonzales aint goin' nowhere. This admin' hangs on to these guys with talons.
post #101 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Gonzales aint goin' nowhere. This admin' hangs on to these guys with talons.


Yes but by it's own actions this administration is slowly being put in a cage.

Talons don't don't do too much good there.
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 #102 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Gonzales aint goin' nowhere. This admin' hangs on to these guys with talons.

Um. Tenet? Fleischer? Meiers? DiIullio? Powell? Brown?

They let people go. They just hold on for good show.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #103 of 120
This isn't about Gonzales, it's about another guy in the executive branch. Gonzales leaving solves nothing.
post #104 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

This isn't about Gonzales, it's about another guy in the executive branch. Gonzales leaving solves nothing.

Exactly. Why would anyone want him to leave when the replacement will be MORE effective? The Democrats have the Senate now but they are not so powerful that they can pick which GA they want.
post #105 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Exactly. Why would anyone want him to leave when the replacement will be MORE effective? The Democrats have the Senate now but they are not so powerful that they can pick which GA they want.


Yes but with every step they make to hide this they're putting another doubt placed on them. They make the situation worse.

And this business of lost emails! As has been pointed out before another administration tried this stuff of lost info. It didn't go well for them.
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 #106 of 120
And it just gets more messy......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18100126/
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 #107 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes but with every step they make to hide this they're putting another doubt placed on them. They make the situation worse.

And this business of lost emails! As has been pointed out before another administration tried this stuff of lost info. It didn't go well for them.

I don't think it matters. There is nothing illegal here. Someone played politics with a political appointment
post #108 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I don't think it matters. There is nothing illegal here. Someone played politics with a political appointment


I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hide it so much.

You may think that's excusable but many don't.

Also this is just one more thing. I've always said since the election once Bush's wall of protection was gone ( the old congress ) things would start coming out. And we're not done. We still have more than a year for more boards to be pulled up and watch the bugs flee for their lives.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure where this could go.

And you know Bush could have avoided all of this by just being real with the people but like so many politicians he became arrogant and well...... here we are.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121482/

A quote from this artcle :

" Specter said Gonzales must explain the firing the U.S. attorneys case by case — and convince senators they were not done to interfere with or promote ongoing criminal investigations aimed at benefiting Republicans.

If he is unable to do so, Gonzales should consider reinstating the fired prosecutors, Specter said.

While a president has a right to replace U.S. attorneys for no reason at all, "you can't replace them for a bad reason," he said. "
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 #109 of 120
It's all meaningless. Rather than deal with real issues the Democrats are pushing this because they think it will help them in 08.

What would help them in 08 is dealing with Iraq, fixing the budget and doing something about health care. But they can't do that so we have these meaningless distractions.
post #110 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

It's all meaningless. Rather than deal with real issues the Democrats are pushing this because they think it will help them in 08.

What would help them in 08 is dealing with Iraq, fixing the budget and doing something about health care. But they can't do that so we have these meaningless distractions.

And you're sure it's meaningless because......??????????

Also they are working on those other issues. This just gets more press right now.

They have to deal with this because Bush has done so many questiionable things in the way he's governed. And this is just one more.

As for 08?

The republicans had better come up with another front runner.
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 #111 of 120
It won't be long yeah yeah yeah yeah
It won't be long yeah yeah yeah yeah
'Till we say s'long to you


CNN is reporting (the new Morning crew - YUCK!) that Gonzales may be facing the "most difficult day of his career" and showed that the grand Dick himself, Cheney, backed away from supporting Gonzo by saying what happens in the justice dept is on Gonzo's watch...

This could be fun and it is very important.

Why?

Abuse of power. Corruption, if you will. Many other possible names for it, yet another screw up by the Bushie Baby, Inc, White House. One difference: they may be able to really stick it to them on this one, thus setting a precendence for further action. If the WH is distancing, then Gonzo Baby is the fall guy. Again.

Bush must go if this is all true. The harm he is doing to the nation is unbelievable. (Cue GWB supporters and fan boys...)

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #112 of 120
It's encouraging to see many Conservatives who put the good of the nation ahead of political damage control for the Bush administration:

"Conservatives to Bush: Fire Gonzales"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...610738,00.html

"In what could prove an embarrassing new setback for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the eve of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of influential conservatives and longtime Bush supporters has written a letter to the White House to call for his resignation.

The two-page letter, written on stationery of the American Freedom Agenda, a recently formed body designed to promote conservative legal principles, is blunt. Addressed to both Bush and Gonzales, it goes well beyond the U.S. attorneys controversy and details other alleged failings by Gonzales. "Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," it declares. "He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm." Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: "He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

The letter concludes by saying, "Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor..." It is the first public demand by a group of conservatives for Gonzales' firing. Signatories to the letter include Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, who has worked frequently with current Administration and the Republican National Committee to promote Bush's court nominees; David Keene, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, one of the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative groups; Richard Viguerie, a well-known G.O.P. direct mail expert and fundraiser; and Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia and free speech advocate, as well as John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative non-profit active in fighting for what it calls religious freedoms.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #113 of 120
With the debate runnning hot over on the VT thread, we may have forgotten this story here...

The debates are taking place now... live on CNN Pipeline... (live, now?? for those of you with Pipeline)

Gonzo is getting GRILLED today.


Oo oh oh
Ooh oh oh oh
Yeah yeah yeah

GOOD BYE!


---

Damn CNN Tv is showing the VT police news conference.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #114 of 120
GONZO APOLOGIZES to the 8 prosecutors...saying they deserved better.


CNN newsflash


BYE BYE GONZO

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #115 of 120
Specter is having a go at him now...

I mght sign up for Pipeline...

Kennedy is up now; gotta love his New England drawl(?) - just like JFK.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #116 of 120
CNN's latest update:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...ony/index.html



Things are not looking good for him... (I hadn't until last night)

Watch one of the videos of Gonzo; he appears weak, unsure of himself. If this is the guy Bushie Baby chose to lead Justice, we have a real problem.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #117 of 120
post #118 of 120
The Attorney General of the United States appears to be a not particularly bright man who claims to not know much about how his department functions or what his subordinates do. He seems incapable of keeping his story straight. Hell, I've got a better grasp of who said what and when, and I'm not really paying very close attention. HIs testimony vacillated between petulant and clueless.

So leaving aside the motivations for the firings and the extent to which Rove was using the Justice Department as one of his chess pieces, doesn't it strike anyone as a problem that in this time of The Most Important War Ever That Will Decided the Fate Of Our Children, Bush chose such a weak, out-of-touch, indecisive and intellectually challenged man for his AG, merely because of than man's servile loyalty?

The rampant cronyism in the Bush White House is bad enough, but as I've said in other instances the real problem is that the people that we expect to do their jobs with at least some minimal competence keep turning out to be lackies who are in way over their heads, and who have spent the last half dozen years or so packing their various departments and agencies with sub-lackies who are equally unqualified. Meanwhile, professional staff have been forced out or have quit in disgust from one end of the government to the other.

Bush is the man who thought freaking Harriet Miers was qualified for the Supreme Court, because the only qualification Bush considers important is how hard you kiss his ass.

For those of you who keep assuring the rest of us that we're just playing partisan politics, don't you care at all that the federal government is staffed with a bunch of cronies like Gonzales?

What if there's a flu pandemic? How much you want to bet that the federal response would be deeply compromised because the agencies charged with responding have been turned into Republican make-work centers and the people in charge don't know what they're doing?

Someone want to explain to me why that's OK, or worth defending? I mean, people are acting like it doesn't matter if the AG is hopeless, as if the Justice Department isn't doing anything of significance. Is it just the whole "the government is the problem" thing, so people who fuck it up are actually doing good?

And how does that work, exactly, since we actually do have a government that actually does need to do some actual things?
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 #119 of 120
[CENTER][/CENTER]
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 #120 of 120

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Long Will Gonzales Last