Getting Feisty

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Getting Feisty

tree made my head hurt:'(

 

[treedancer]

Re: Getting Feisty

Kinda hoping to put this thread to bed.8)

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

Its just insane! Clinton fires 93 AG's (out of a potential 94) at one time and not a word is spoken. That would be every AG in the country save one that was saved for political purposes by Bill Bradley. You might just know who he is - Chertoff? In fact Clinton gave them a paltry 10 days to clear out. I am sure that all those people were not qualified and useless, especially the one ready to indict a certain Illinois Senator within 30 days. For any liberal with a memory issue or a current, liberal, politically correct, public school text book, that was Dan Rostenkowski. Herfty derfty down the road we go.......

Bush carry's Clintons dead weight appointees in an effort to convey bi-partisianship for 5 years and then lets 8 go and the world is falling apart. We need new laws! He might have talk to his advisors about this! Who does he think he is, the President? It is clear and incontrovertable that a president can fire any AG he wants for whatever reason or for no reason at all. Thats not opinion. They serve at his pleasure. Even the democrats admit this. But if being manipulated is something you relish, if politics over law is more important to you, if your hated of our President allows you to justify usurping the laws of the land, go get um. Just don't expect the rest of us to take a big swig of the kool-aid that is being peddled around. And don't wrap yourself in the belief you are doing this for the benefit of the AG's being let go. In your hearts you know you know nothing about them. And who wouldn't mind taking a whoopin stick to a lawyer - really? d

 

[PW2]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

You don't charge anyone with a crime until you complete a thorough investigations of their actions. All that is being done is investigating those actions, which is what the justice dept. is supposed to do, and what the congressional hearings are supposed to ferret out.

Why should you fear it so, if your side has done nothing wrong?

 

[ob]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

You don't charge anyone with a crime until you complete a thorough investigations of their actions. All that is being done is investigating those actions, which is what the justice dept. is supposed to do, and what the congressional hearings are supposed to ferret out.

Why should you fear it so, if your side has done nothing wrong?

Your side.....my side.....why not our side? .....Yaaaawwwwnnn..

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

What alledged crime has been committed. It is right there in the question? If you are investigating a potential crime, what is it? He fired people he can legally fire? Note: That is not a crime. See Clintons firing of 93 AG's, with 10 days to clear out, with one saved because of politics. Ready to start up that investingation? It would have to be what 11 times bigger?

The president has the right to choose his team. Sorry if that somehow bothers some. But don't some of you find it hypocritical that you want to have Rove fired by President Bush because you hate him, but are suddenly concerned for some non-existant rights of some AG's you never met or heard of or are capable of making an evaluation of their performance? It isn't like he stuck classified documents down his pants.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: Getting Feisty

Obstruction of Justice. That's what is being pursued. Shuffling attorneys to change the course of litigation to a favorable political outcome. Trading Justice for Politics. That's what they're investigaring.

E-mails seem to pointing strongly in that direction as far as physical evidence. Circumstances surrounding the attorneys in questions seem to raise questions. That's what they're investigating.

Yeah, using Clinton as an excuse is pretty weak.

By the way, there was indeed a big flap about Clinton's firings back then. I recall even with ever fewer brain cells still firing.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Getting Feisty

especially the one ready to indict a certain Illinois Senator within 30 days. For any liberal with a memory issue or a current, liberal, politically correct, public school text book, that was Dan Rostenkowski. Herfty derfty down the road we go.......

Where's the investigation? Where is the concern? Not a parallel?

 

[oddjob]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

You don't charge anyone with a crime until you complete a thorough investigations of their actions. All that is being done is investigating those actions, which is what the justice dept. is supposed to do, and what the congressional hearings are supposed to ferret out.

Why should you fear it so, if your side has done nothing wrong?

What actions exactly?

Perhaps you need to be investigated PW. I suspect (by your own your protocol) that you have probably broken the law. Just because charges havnt been filed doesnt mean you havnt done something illegal. PM me asap with your phone number AND address and I'll see that the local athorities get a supeana and a search warrant. Oh and thanks for the tip...I have a few others on my list that are due for justice as well. d

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Getting Feisty

Pointer keeps sticking to a very good point that no dem seems to be able to answer. If they are conducting an investigation, THEY THINK SOMEONE DID SOMETHING WRONG!! They don't do it for the fun of doing it!

So WHAT, we ask, are they saying was done wrong? Someone wants to conduct an investigation with absolutely no evidence of wrong doing and when Bush says stuff it you dems blame him of doing something wrong??

What a joke!!

Oh yea, for the rather "dense" dems out there, the reason we keep bringing up Clinton is for a very simple reason, the entire reason you guys are trying to find something wrong with Bush is because he's Bush, a conservative, a right winger, a Reagan repub, whatever word you want to use. It's NOT because you want to better the country.

So you want to play politics, oh us righties can play some dayum good politics my friend.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

You don't charge anyone with a crime until you complete a thorough investigations of their actions.

[colour=blue]Hmmmm PW2, so that's what you Liberals want: non stop investigations without any potential for any primary underlying crime what so ever. I guess we need to raise those taxes to employ armies of prosecuters to investigate all government employees, (all the Republicans at least), and set purgery traps, (the taxes can help with prison cornstruction to house all those disgraced public servants). I guess you want a Country that no one will ever cornsider serving the public in government again eh PW2?:}:}:} [/colour]

All that is being done is investigating those actions, which is what the justice dept. is supposed to do, and what the congressional hearings are supposed to ferret out.

[colour=blue]Huh? Did you skip civics class at NHHS: PW2?[/colour] :}:}:}

Why should you fear it so, if your side has done nothing wrong?

[colour=blue]If you possess any ability to engage in critical thinkin': please ponder what you are wishing for here, PW2!![/colour]:}:}:}

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Getting Feisty

OMR, you are dead on.

With his "if you haven't done anything wrong, why should you fear it so" comment his left wing, big gov't bias is clearly evident.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Bush doesn't have to prove to anyone he's innocent, the dems have to prove he's guilty. Cooperation is NOT required for that either!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Getting Feisty

Obstruction of Justice. That's what is being pursued.

[colour=blue]Willy, ya need to look up the definition of "Obstruction of Justice". That is NOT POSSIBLE in this matter, untill someone testifies under oath in front of a Judge, or interferres with that particular process, once the probability of a crime has been established.[/colour]

Shuffling attorneys to change the course of litigation to a favorable political outcome. Trading Justice for Politics. That's what they're investigaring.

[colour=blue]That may be the hope, (or Dems' n' Libs' wishfull thinkin' for this fishin' expadition if the Supreme Court forces the President to make internal policy advice within the administration subject to congressional review, [VERY VERY UNLIKELY]). That said: it is not: "Obstruction of Justice", 'cause that just is not possible at this stage in any way shape or form!![/colour]

E-mails seem to pointing strongly in that direction as far as physical evidence. Circumstances surrounding the attorneys in questions seem to raise questions. That's what they're investigating.

[colour=blue]I repeat: NO POTENTIAL LAW COULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN until the congress or a prosecuter creates a "process crime" during their investigation!! [/colour]

Yeah, using Clinton as an excuse is pretty weak.

[colour=blue]I agree: this has ZERO to do with President Clinton![/colour]

By the way, there was indeed a big flap about Clinton's firings back then.

[colour=blue]Political questions were raised on talk radio at that time, and IBD and WSJ editorials, (but that was the extent of it). MSM did not pounce on it back then. That is legitimate: Willy, and would be here too. The problem now is the subpoenas Willy. Waste of time for political gain, that I for one hope backfires big time, (as Morris thinks). [/colour] Respectfully JR

I recall even with ever fewer brain cells still firing.

 

[stevieray]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

Time out!

ham - that was a lighthearted response to some dumb goose joke, if I can recall (I said "stick to the funny smileys"). Not to a legitimate expression of your ideas - I don't want people thinking I'm THAT big of a schmuck!

Time back in!

 

[i386]

Re: Getting Feisty

OMR, you are dead on.

With his "if you haven't done anything wrong, why should you fear it so" comment his left wing, big gov't bias is clearly evident.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Bush doesn't have to prove to anyone he's innocent, the dems have to prove he's guilty. Cooperation is NOT required for that either!

I love it. When the gubment wants to tap my phone lines and spy (because I might be up to something) on me I gotta suck it up. If i haven't done anything wrong I don't have anything to worry about right? Riiiiiight. But turn the tables and it's now a problem? Sorry, there's been some good arguments in this thread but that ain't one of 'em.


Question..

Has there ever been an incident of oversight where the opposition didn't call shenanigans? It would surprise me if there were. Has anything positive ever came from something like this before?

 

[xtraham]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

Time out!

ham - that was a lighthearted response to some dumb goose joke, if I can recall (I said "stick to the funny smileys"). Not to a legitimate expression of your ideas - I don't want people thinking I'm THAT big of a schmuck!

Time back in!

no harm meant stevieray, I stated it in a lighthearted way,
that, has now become apparent to me that you have to be very careful about,
I know how to speak slowly, so as to be understood, but have yet to learn to type as such...........

 

[stevieray]

Re: Getting Feisty

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

Time out!

ham - that was a lighthearted response to some dumb goose joke, if I can recall (I said "stick to the funny smileys"). Not to a legitimate expression of your ideas - I don't want people thinking I'm THAT big of a schmuck!

Time back in!

no harm meant stevieray, I stated it in a lighthearted way,
that, has now become apparent to me that you have to be very careful about,
I know how to speak slowly, so as to be understood, but have yet to learn to type as such...........

No harm...no fowl

 

[Gabby]

Re: Getting Feisty

If the government is tapping your phone like than you must have a criminal record. They don't randomly tap joe publics phone. The Patriot Act doesn't randomly advocate checking in on little old ladies in Topeka to see what they may be up to.

They may monitor you if you're a criminal, or a terrorist, or here illegaly from a country that sponsors terrorism, etc. You Libs love to take a common sense approach to something and blow it out of proportion.

If a stalker called your daughter and threatened her I guarantee you'd want a police officer outside her house. WHY? To protect her in CASE the lunatic showed. This nonsense about not wanting surveillance and being scared your rights are being trampled is stupid. I guarantee that if your daughter HAD that call, and the cops did nothing, and she ended up harmed at the hands of a stalker, you'd scream and have every news agency and lawyer in the state on it. WHY WASN'T SOMETHIGN DONE!

You can't protect yourself with a reactionary policy. You have to be on the offensive and sniff out criminals and terrorist BEFORE they strike. Mark my words, a worse horror than 9/11 will happen. And when it does, the liberal elite will be the first to point fingers and not accept the blame as their own.

You wanna come peek in my winders, come on. I have nothing to hide. What is it you libs are doing behind closed doors and curtains that you are ashamed of? Naked Twister?

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Getting Feisty

You got that right Gabby, i386's arguement is very very weak. Where did I say that the gov't could tap your phone without cause and it be ok? How did the topic change over to gov't phone taps? I don't recall ever saying anything about that. By all means do a search, and if you find something, bring it to my attention. Otherwise don't accuse me of thinking a certain way and not having a bit of proof to back it up.

"When losing an arguement, change the subject to one you can win on." For you, that would be "confusion".

Gosh, that sure sounds like the investigation on Bush doesn't it? Oh wait, thats right, they didn't even accuse him of anything...

 

[Gabby]

Re: Getting Feisty

I'm reminded of the movie with Jack Nicholson "As Good as it Gets". In the scene where the receptionist asks him how do you write women so well, and he says " I think of a man, and take away all reason and accountability".

Substitute that question for "how can you think like a liberal". Same answer.

Or better yet...You can't HANDLE the truth!