S
Shattered
Guest
I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt, to see if he is capable of growing a little. If I'm just pissing in the wind, well, I'll just get a little damp.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt, to see if he is capable of growing a little. If I'm just pissing in the wind, well, I'll just get a little damp.
I spent most of the afternoon with him and I am soaking wet
I spent most of the afternoon with him and I am soaking wet
Got umbrella?
For him a sweatband and a pair of Depends
An almost witty reply...almost. But let's stay on topic here. Are you going to answer the questions I posed to you in <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>?
No puerile insults or cut-and-paste please. In your own words.
Well, since no one seems up to the challenge, I'll just add fuel to the fire.
It seems that on November 27, 2006, a mere 10 days before seven US attorneys were sacked, Alberto Gonzalez met with senior advisers to discuss those firings. Now, this contradicts his previous statements that he didn't know anything about the firings or what his underlings were doing with regard to those firings. Is his memory as faulty as Scooter's? I hope so, and with the same consequences.
From sweating since you were backed into a corner all afternoon
Bully, I've dislike Gonzales for a long time, for reasons you probably do not relate to. With that said, I tried to stick up for 'pleasure of the president', but with that comes responsibilities. So I'm going with this:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009496.php
At the same time, I do wonder if you and your buddies would do the same. I know that is hypothetical, since Democratic administrations are always staffed by the Best and the brightest.
Bill Buckley is, far and away, the sharpest tool in the conservative shed, unlike this current lot in the Bush administration. And I find myself in agreement regarding his assessment of this administration. As for the responsibilities incumbent upon the POTUS, Bush has fallen short of the mark there, as in many other things.
Incompetence may not be a crime, but when the consequences of that incompetence erode confidence in the justice system and the federal government...when it reduces America's credibility around the world to nearly nothing...when it costs America in blood and treasure what it has cost us in Iraq...That incompetence, in my opinion, becomes maleficence. The incompetents must be made to bear the responsibility for their incompetence.
I'm not going to argue, just note that you did not address the last part of my post. While the liberals know that 'thinking' conservatives will not give a bye to the wrong things and will hammer away until there are those concessions; those same liberals never give in that wrongs are done in both camps.
For me, dear lady, it is a given. Taking responsibility for one's actions is neither Republican nor Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. As human beings, it is possible for any of us, through ignorance or intent, to cause harm to others. To pretend otherwise is is pollyanish at best, delusional at worst, regardless of one's political affiliation or philosophy.
For those unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, we have laws and the courts to enforce that responsibility. Those laws and courts, and officers of the courts, must function as impartially as humanly possible.
If any attempt was made by this Administration, or members of this Administration, to interfere with or subvert those functions, it must be rooted out, wherever the evidence may lead. And if found complicit in these efforts to undermine the justice system, they should step aside for those for whom loyalty to party and President is secondary to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. If it turns out to be a "witch-hunt on the part of the Democrats, then shame on them. They should hand over their positions to those who will put loyalty to the Constitution and its institutions above partisan politics.
Why would I bother, are you Lucy and I'm supposed to be Charlie Brown? You haven't been able to post anything serious since I've been visiting here. It's all "chimpy this, and chimpy that".I did the responsible thing and moved the whole conversation to this thread, But enough of this attempt to change the subject. Why don't you have a crack at those questions I posed for red?
and if their only 'sin' was communication, which I think is more than likely, you will 'forgive'? I don't think so, nor do I . On the other hand, to villify the way you and others have for years, no. It's wrong, perhaps more wrong.
Why would I bother, are you Lucy and I'm supposed to be Charlie Brown? You haven't been able to post anything serious since I've been visiting here. It's all "chimpy this, and chimpy that".
Well, since no one seems up to the challenge, I'll just add fuel to the fire.
It seems that on November 27, 2006, a mere 10 days before seven US attorneys were sacked, Alberto Gonzalez met with senior advisers to discuss those firings. Now, this contradicts his previous statements that he didn't know anything about the firings or what his underlings were doing with regard to those firings. Is his memory as faulty as Scooter's? I hope so, and with the same consequences.
Actually now that I think of it the people subpeoned don't have to be coerced. They'd probably just go on their own out of fear of facing jailtime and/or fines. No executive needed. Plus, agents of the court could probably do the job of finding any others.I notice that you posted after I gave the other kids the answer. You are correct. The only way it will happen is if Bush chooses for it to happen.
What the Hell kind of President wants the title "Only Impeached President in United States History" hanging under his name in the history books?You cannot know for a fact that he would be impeached unless you and Ms Cleo are uh intimate, yeah, that's the word. And, impeachment isn't removal from office. So what's the big deal? It aint like he's running for office again.
Possible. As I said, it'll only happen by choice.Actually now that I think of it the people subpeoned don't have to be coerced. They'd probably just go on their own out of fear of facing jailtime and/or fines. No executive needed. Plus, agents of the court could probably do the job of finding any others.
What the Hell kind of President wants the title "Only Impeached President in United States History" hanging under his name in the history books?
A choice reached out of fear of consequences imposed on them by the Congress.Possible. As I said, it'll only happen by choice.
Impeachment is a two part process. Johnson and Clinton only jumped through the first hoop. The second hoop is what gets you removed from office. And, regardless, I highly doubt Bush is trying to add an impeachment trial to his legacy right now.pegwinn said:Ask Johnson and Clinton.
Impeachment isn't removal. It is the precursor and in no way guarantees the result you want.