NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors;_ylt=AmobdYjvhkwZ4M_hGNNcGGOs0NUE

Anyone who is not 100% loyal to Bush should be fired? This seems to be the modus operandi of this administration. They promote loyalty above all else as competence is the last thing they need. What recourse do the people have to beat back the system? If we as a people could impeach would you? Give your thoughts on this scandal and all other things impeachable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors;_ylt=AmobdYjvhkwZ4M_hGNNcGGOs0NUE

Anyone who is not 100% loyal to Bush should be fired? This seems to be the modus operandi of this administration. They promote loyalty above all else as competence is the last thing they need. What recourse do the people have to beat back the system? If we as a people could impeach would you? Give your thoughts on this scandal and all other things impeachable.


Bah fuckin' politics, bah fuckin' politicains.

I posted elsewhere that I think all those who feel the need to do service to their commuinty or country should do so on a low waged, voluntary basis with no, and I mean absoluty no benifits whatsoever.

I would impeach him, but then Cheney would be president, so we'd have to have someone scare the shit out of him so he'd die of heartattack before we do anything.

Damn, looks like W's second term is turning into one scandal after another.

Damn, looks like W's second term is turning into one scandal after another.

First term was almost as bad.

First term was almost as bad.

Yeah but this time we can sit back and giggle at everyone who voted for him. "We warned you!"


:D

Don't forget -- wait, none of you are old enough to remember. Just compare this with what Clinton did in 1993. Some of you will figure it out and the rest don't matter. Spoils are part of politics and elections have consequences.

I support this policy so long as only the incompetant serve him. At least ut makes his half-assed attempts at what seems like starting WWIII over in the middle east fail.

Can you imagine if the guys working for him were actually decently competent? World domination and loss of the most basic civil rights for the rest of the world? Not a scenario I'd like to see happen.

Just compare this with what Clinton did in

Had legal sexual intercourse with a consenting adult in the privacy of his own office?

Sorry, not really comparable.

Had legal sexual intercourse with a consenting adult in the privacy of his own office?

Sorry, not really comparable.

Yes but he did it again in 98! Zomg!

I support this policy so long as only the incompetant serve him. At least ut makes his half-assed attempts at what seems like starting WWIII over in the middle east fail.

Can you imagine if the guys working for him were actually decently competent? World domination and loss of the most basic civil rights for the rest of the world? Not a scenario I'd like to see happen.

You're tho thilly.

Don't forget -- wait, none of you are old enough to remember. Just compare this with what Clinton did in 1993. Some of you will figure it out and the rest don't matter. Spoils are part of politics and elections have consequences.

Did what, he let US attorneys go in 1993? You're right, spoils are part of politics and elections do have consequences. However, it is the general practice to retain US attorneys in office unless they have committed serious breaches of the law or conduct, or unless they're being promoted to the bench. A president does not as a rule remove US attorneys during an administration. (Of course, if that's not what you mean, then never mind.)

The only one of the eight I've heard any details about is the guy down in New Mexico. Not only did he get glowing reviews the entire time he was in office, but he was considered one of the shining lights of the New Mexico Republican organization. He was a protege of sorts to John Ashcroft. Apparently his only error during his time in office was not bringing in indictments of prominent Democrats before the November, 2006, elections. Go figure.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

So, it's OK if Clinton fires ALL of them, and not OK if Bush fires a few?

What? A politician purging the government of people he deems politically threatening to his allies?

It's not like that's never been done before...hell, go back about 100 years and you'll see the President firing most of the government (even the post office!) because they're from a different party's administration. This kind of stuff is as old as the US itself.

This is tame compared to what was done in the late 19th century.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/congress.prosecutors.ap/index.html

Hey, if Clinton actually fired all of the US Attorneys, why can't Bush even suggest it?

I would impeach him, but then Cheney would be president

yes, because it'd be really hard to get rid of mr. 18%

Don't forget -- wait, none of you are old enough to remember. Just compare this with what Clinton did in 1993. Some of you will figure it out and the rest don't matter. Spoils are part of politics and elections have consequences.
What? At least a blow job doesn't take you to an (illegal) war, although you are right about spoils, unfortunately.:(

If we as a people could impeach would you? Give your thoughts on this scandal and all other things impeachable.
I think that a recall system would be a good thing, yes.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill



So, it's OK if Clinton fires ALL of them, and not OK if Bush fires a few?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/congress.prosecutors.ap/index.html

That just proves my point.

Clinton ACTUALLY fired all the US Attorneys - and Bush suggested it - and only fired 8.

Gee. Liuzzo, I guess you think it was OK that Clinton did it, but bad if Bush does it.

It was dumb when Clinton did it. It's equally dumb that Bush is doing it. Fair?

Nope. It's a historical precedent going down through most of American history.

And, it's not against the Constitution. Fair?

It was dumb when Clinton did it. It's equally dumb that Bush is doing it. Fair?

Frankly, the Democrats need to get their act together in the Senate and get 17 loyal Republicans on their side. The plan is simple.

Impeach and remove Cheney. The Senate can then block any confirmation of a replacement VP. At the same time, they impeach and remove Bush. Voila - instant President Pelosi. Maybe Pelosi isn't ideal, but she's got to be better than Bush or Cheney.

The problem? Getting 17 Republicans to go along with it.

That just proves my point.

Clinton ACTUALLY fired all the US Attorneys - and Bush suggested it - and only fired 8.

Gee. Liuzzo, I guess you think it was OK that Clinton did it, but bad if Bush does it.

God damn you. I'm actually siding with you on this one.

It really is his decision as to who keeps their job as a US Attorney and who does not. Just like it's his job as to whether any Cabinet member keeps his job or not.

Precedents be damned, that fact is all that matters.

God damn you. I'm actually siding with you on this one.

Sorry! I'm used to people having depleted uranium skulls.

Sorry! I'm used to people having depleted uranium skulls.

Hey, U-238 shells give your Marines a lot better attack range in Starcraft.

Hey, if Clinton actually fired all of the US Attorneys, why can't Bush even suggest it?

Ahh, the "he did it first" defense. I never liked this one much when children used it growing up as it always seemed like a flat out excuse for bad behavior. The question is the motivation for the firings in question. What cause does Bush have for these firings? Further, Reno called for these acts on her own, not necessarily at the behest of William J. Clinton. I find ti to be bad form for anyone to try and fire someone who has dirst on them and it just shows poorly on their character. So continue with the "but he started it" defense and commence the suckling of the Bush.

yes, because it'd be really hard to get rid of mr. 18%

No I mean once admitted into the presidency, his true form will reveal itself as Cthuleneyhu, and he will devour the universe.

Bah fuckin' politics, bah fuckin' politicains.

I posted elsewhere that I think all those who feel the need to do service to their commuinty or country should do so on a low waged, voluntary basis with no, and I mean absoluty no benifits whatsoever.

I agree completely. How about joining the local rescue/ems squad, or become a volunteer firefighter? Those two will require the most commitment due to the required training, and nothing feels like saving a life or saving someones (or most of it) house.

Did what, he let US attorneys go in 1993? You're right, spoils are part of politics and elections do have consequences. However, it is the general practice to retain US attorneys in office unless they have committed serious breaches of the law or conduct, or unless they're being promoted to the bench. A president does not as a rule remove US attorneys during an administration. (Of course, if that's not what you mean, then never mind.)

The only one of the eight I've heard any details about is the guy down in New Mexico. Not only did he get glowing reviews the entire time he was in office, but he was considered one of the shining lights of the New Mexico Republican organization. He was a protege of sorts to John Ashcroft. Apparently his only error during his time in office was not bringing in indictments of prominent Democrats before the November, 2006, elections. Go figure.

Congratulations, you're the only one to figure it out. Everyone else had the same knee-jerk reaction -- It's just sex --. But Clinton fired ALL the US Attorneys, save one. Now rationalize that!

Congratulations, you're the only one to figure it out. Everyone else had the same knee-jerk reaction -- It's just sex --. But Clinton fired ALL the US Attorneys, save one. Now rationalize that!

Don't need to. They're in the direct employ of the president. He can fire them for any bloody reason or no reason. Doesn't make bush any better, doesn't make him any worse.

What? A politician purging the government of people he deems politically threatening to his allies?

this ain't your standard spoils system move, or even ass-covering. this was straight up fired for failure to put dear leader and dear leader's party's interests first and foremost.

Don't need to. They're in the direct employ of the president. He can fire them for any bloody reason or no reason. Doesn't make bush any better, doesn't make him any worse.
My point, exactly. There just seems to be a double standard in play and I'm not quite sure why.

BTW, how did you determine that I'm a she in the "Name the ..." thread? I'm not female, for what that's worth.

Why fire them?
Just institute the office of Judicial Commisar and shoot any attorneys who show signs of competence!
I mean, is anybody REALLY going to object to executing lawyers? ;)

My point, exactly. There just seems to be a double standard in play and I'm not quite sure why.

because a notably lawless president firing his own chief law enforcement appointees in the middle of a term doesn't pass the smell test.

let's move past the "he did it first stuff." Should the people be allowed to impeach a President when he acts outside of the law? If a President is found to be practicing nothing but CYA, why should we allow him to do it? I don't care if his name is Clinton, Bush, or Jehova.

My point, exactly. There just seems to be a double standard in play and I'm not quite sure why.

BTW, how did you determine that I'm a she in the "Name the ..." thread? I'm not female, for what that's worth.

I assumed, incorrectly it seems, based on your name. I really haven't been in that many threads with you to get a bead on what your gender was from context, unlike Bottle, Neesika, and Dempublicents, who have all openly stated that they are females in threads I've read.

I assumed, incorrectly it seems, based on your name. I really haven't been in that many threads with you to get a bead on what your gender was from context, unlike Bottle, Neesika, and Dempublicents, who have all openly stated that they are females in threads I've read.

Neesika is a girl? Hm.

EDIT: Her title is "adminbots boyfriend". Lol

let's move past the "he did it first stuff." Should the people be allowed to impeach a President when he acts outside of the law? If a President is found to be practicing nothing but CYA, why should we allow him to do it? I don't care if his name is Clinton, Bush, or Jehova.
So then, Clinton's perjury was an actionable offense. That's got to be a true statement, in view of the fact we live by the rule of law. I especially take the part about "equal treatment under the law" seriously.

Neesika is a girl? Hm.

EDIT: Her title is "adminbots boyfriend". Lol

I'm fairly sure she is, based on context. I'm also not the only one who thinks so, based on the Gender thread.

Argh, I made the wrong poll choice...
I thought it said 'too stupid to understand these things' and I clicked that.
I wanted to say 'Yes' but also 'they're too stupid to understand these things'. :(
I have a bad opinion of human intelligence.

Ilaer

Argh, I made the wrong poll choice...
I thought it said 'too stupid to understand these things' and I clicked that.
I wanted to say 'Yes' but also 'they're too stupid to understand these things'. :(
I have a bad opinion of human intelligence.

Ilaer

says the man who picked the wrong poll option.

says the man who picked the wrong poll option.

That's different. It was me. :D
I just read the first part of the poll option, clicked it and then clicked the submit button before realising what I'd done. :(

Ilaer

I would impeach him, but then Cheney would be president, so we'd have to have someone scare the shit out of him so he'd die of heartattack before we do anything.

LMFAO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors;_ylt=AmobdYjvhkwZ4M_hGNNcGGOs0NUE

Anyone who is not 100% loyal to Bush should be fired? This seems to be the modus operandi of this administration. They promote loyalty above all else as competence is the last thing they need. What recourse do the people have to beat back the system? If we as a people could impeach would you? Give your thoughts on this scandal and all other things impeachable.

Screw those bastards.

So then, Clinton's perjury was an actionable offense. That's got to be a true statement, in view of the fact we live by the rule of law. I especially take the part about "equal treatment under the law" seriously.

And was not action taken in the Clinton perjury case? It would seem he was impeached and it fell short. My questions remains that the Bush administration has bastardized the rule of law and it would make sense for the people to impeach. Would you support having the people impeach a president, regardless of his name. Also, Alberto came out today saying the firings were handled the wrong way. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_prosecutors

And was not action taken in the Clinton perjury case? It would seem he was impeached and it fell short. My questions remains that the Bush administration has bastardized the rule of law and it would make sense for the people to impeach. Would you support having the people impeach a president, regardless of his name. Also, Alberto came out today saying the firings were handled the wrong way. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_prosecutors
Let's see if I can catch all that you're shoveling. First, good for you, you realize that Clinton's impeachment wasn't about sex, it was about equal protection. Second, if and when Bush commits a crime, then he should be impeached, should he still be in office. Third, wrongly fired and wrongly handled are two very different things. I'm no fan of A.G., but their his lawyers to appoint and dismiss. No crime there.

First, good for you, you realize that Clinton's impeachment wasn't about sex, it was about equal protection.

only if one is incapable of reading legal definitions

just admit you love the clenis and be done with it

Let's see if I can catch all that you're shoveling. First, good for you, you realize that Clinton's impeachment wasn't about sex, it was about equal protection. Second, if and when Bush commits a crime, then he should be impeached, should he still be in office. Third, wrongly fired and wrongly handled are two very different things. I'm no fan of A.G., but their his lawyers to appoint and dismiss. No crime there.

No, Clinton's impeachment was about lying about sex, there's a difference. Why were we so interested in this sexual escapade in the first place? My opinion is the Republican leadership at the time just wanted to nail him so bad (no pun intended) that they'd go to any lengths to do it. It was a non-issue, certainly not like outing a NOC CIA agent for political retribution. Clinton was foudn not guilty as even most in the Republican Party realized that what they were doing was laughable at best. All the while Newt is carrying on one of his MANY affairs and claiming the moral high ground. Nothing better than an adulterer going after one of his own. What's next, the disgraced disgraced priests in Boston going after GLAD for being immoral. Further, what is the motivation behind the firings? Clinton cleansing the system of every single AG wasn't a good idea, but at least you couldn't say there was a specific agenda involved. He got rid of everyone, not just those that were a threat to him. There in lies the difference but you'll twist and turn to ignore that fact. You'll also ignore the fact that Alberto himself, as linked by me, said that there was something amiss in Munchkinland. Can you discern the difference between cleaning the slate and specific targeting of opposition forces? Finally, as I've said before the "he did it first" defense sucks so try something new. "NEXT!"

Yeah but this time we can sit back and giggle at everyone who voted for him. "We warned you!"


:D

But in the topical equation, those who voted for him arn't in the competent.

I especially take the part about "equal treatment under the law" seriously.

So what do you think of a president who signs new laws brought up by congress, and then says he doesn't have to follow it?