I hate how the typical response came up several times in this thread in place of actually discussing the merits of the issue It seems like instead of actually acknowledging that this is wrong and debating the merits of whether or not Gonzales should be fired, Republicans / neocons in ...
03-13-2007, 11:18 PM
| #21 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina 
| I hate how the typical response came up several times in this thread in place of actually discussing the merits of the issue It seems like instead of actually acknowledging that this is wrong and debating the merits of whether or not Gonzales should be fired, Republicans / neocons in general always want to to point to something that Bill Clinton did wrong (surprise!  ) and then proceed to ignore the rest of the issue.It's a game of political "gotcha" and nothing more, and it doesn't change what is going on right now, and it doesn't mean it can be ignored because someone else did something similar in the past. The reality is that I think you'll find most people who either lean left or simply disagree with Bush on this board will say if it was politically motivated when Clinton did it, it was wrong.. However, that doesn't change that this isn't then, it's a new time, and we're here now and have the ability to say (and potentially do) something about it. So, my question to the Bushites on the board is this: Do you agree or disagree that it's wrong to have these people fired for not selectively taking cases based on the political convenience of whoever is in office? I don't really care what you have to say about Clinton potentially doing it because it's irrelevant and doesn't justify a damn thing, so leave that out of any response to my question please. | ||||
     |
|
03-13-2007, 11:19 PM
| #22 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| On a lighter note, I've fixed your title thomez. I have no clue who Roberto Gonzales is, but I don't think he'd appreciate you linking him with someone like Alberto Gonzales and this scandal.  | ||||
| |
|
03-13-2007, 11:21 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| I dont like the guy so hopefully he'll get the boot. | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 12:00 AM
| #24 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by motivez 
 I was trying to deal with freakin' 5th graders as I made this thread 
__________________ Perhaps the sentiments contained in the preceding post, are not yet sufficiently favorable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. - slightly modified from Common Sense, Thomas Paine, 1776 I am Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas... I am the champion of the Constitution.  | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 02:22 AM
| #25 | ||||
| Member  Conservative
| Originally Posted by tbone
curious....how can a presidential appointee be non-political? now, to pre-empt the typical bashing, I think it was handled poorly...but the outcry over this is a joke, and purely motivated to just distract... Clinton fired all but one (michael Chertoff) 93 I think in total right?...and there is this level of venom? | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 02:24 AM
| #26 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat  Moderate Northern VA
| Originally Posted by MTdream did you read 2 posts above yours?
| ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 02:26 AM
| #27 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| Originally Posted by motivez
a political appointee is exaclty that...and they know they are there by grace... I have several friends who are very high level appointees...and they know the gig when they take it... personally, I think it was a mistake that Bush et al. did not do this at the beginning of their first term...that to me is just goofyness...part of the power of the president is being able to appoint these folk... | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 02:28 AM
| #28 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| Originally Posted by Pro Street post 24....applies? hmmm not sure I get yoru point...
did you read beyond my inital comment to see that I said it was handled poorly? this board is comical...you assume that conservatives are bushites...sad... | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 02:29 AM
| #29 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| When Clinton got re-elected he fired every last one of them I think. | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 03:03 AM
| #30 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat Moderate Northern VA
| Originally Posted by MTdream I do?
where have I ever said that?  | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 03:11 AM
| #31 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Pro Street they all voted for Kerry
| ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 03:13 AM
| #32 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| Originally Posted by JaJae
nah, one was retained...but 93 fired...in one fell swoop...only one retained was Michael Chertoff... | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 03:26 AM
| #33 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat Moderate Northern VA
| Originally Posted by MTdream I don't see how these two incidents are related in any way at all
| ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 04:21 AM
| #34 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| Originally Posted by Pro Street
well that is a surprise... people are screaming about Bush manipulating justice, stakcing deck whatever blah blah blah, that removing these people is being done in a purely political maneuver...it is ONLY for chronyism... hello...your arguments are vacant...without merit, or your just being hypocritical...you pick it...either way...but there are no other options here... and I have ALREADY said...how it was handled was wrong...but arguing it is criminal or whatever, is completely off base and being done only for political posturing... | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 11:30 AM
| #35 | ||||
| I'm your huckleberry!  Independent Ohio
| Clinton fired them in one swoop, not because they would not relentlessly pursue cases against the GOP. While his reasons may have been petty or purely politcal as well, it wasn't malicious, targeting his politcal foes. | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 11:41 AM
| #36 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by motivez But nothing was wrong
 He admitted to 'mishandling' or whatever, but that was obviously for political purposes. What are we supposed to acknowledge as wrong? | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 12:56 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat Moderate Northern VA
| Originally Posted by MTdream
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was criminal, however it is an abuse of the position, to fire people for purely political reasons.. and this isn't the President doing the firing, but the AG. Gonzalez has done quite enough in regards to Patriot Act abuses, making statements about due process, and now this. There are more that I can't remember off the top of my head. If this was done for political purposes, why has one person been fired, and why is Gonzalez apologizing for the wrongdoing?
I'm sorry but it reeks of corruption. | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 01:00 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat Moderate Northern VA
| oh, and one of the reasons this is different is because the replacements no longer have to go through the Senate. | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 01:06 PM
| #39 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| Originally Posted by Pro Street
yeah, so we go after someone for something that has no merit? BTW, I could do some smart mouthed comment to you as well, that has something to do with reading...as you obviously didnt...but this is a tired defenseless position that people are taking over this issue...I am out...got to catch a flight... | ||||
| |
|
03-14-2007, 01:08 PM
| #40 |
| Member |
