Attorney General Gonzales to Resign

[mr_pikachu]

Officials say Gonzales has resigned

It seems that after countless attacks from Democrats, Gonzales is finally stepping down from his post as Attorney General.

This seems to me like a huge hit for Bush and his team, whose numbers decline by the day. First Karl Rove and now Gonzales... this can't be a good sign for the Bush camp.

Discuss!

[Heald]

This is a dark day for democracy and world peace as we know it. He was perhaps the most wise of all the Attorney-Generals ever to go by the title. Who couldn't forget some infinite wisdom such as:

"I don't know that."
"I cannot answer that question."
"No comment."

He makes Tony Blair's incessant question dodging look rational.

[Roy Karrde]

This seems to me like a huge hit for Bush and his team,

Bush has a year left, and no possible way to pass through bills with a pathetic democrat congress. So those that can get better jobs, or can go work on the next Republican President are doing so.

whose numbers decline by the day.

Bush's numbers are up with the surge working, and Iraq improving.

Either way it is sad that he has to step down for something that is perfectly legal and within the President's Power. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President has the decision to keep or fire them. But hey the Democrats saw fit to try and get him fired for something perfectly legal in a attempt to do nothing but try and go after Bush Administration Officials, instead of create bills and produce legislature.

[mr_pikachu]

Bush's numbers are up with the surge working, and Iraq improving.

Just to clarify, I actually meant the number of people on his staff (i.e. Rove and Gonzales), not his poll numbers. I probably could've made that clearer in the first place... sorry 'bout that.

[Blademaster]

Bush's numbers are up with the surge working, and Iraq improving.

(snicker)

Yeah, his approval rating has gone up from the upper 29% to 32%. That may not be much by our terms, but it's a Hell of an accomplishment for ol' Dubya there.

[Drusilla]

But hey the Democrats saw fit to try and get him fired for something perfectly legal

Well, damn, Republicans have never done that before, have they? Hmmm...

My oppinion

Gonzales had it coming... I honestly don't know the ins and outs of it, having spend most of my news-watching time keeping an eye out for hurricanes, but from the dodgy things I'd been hearing since he was appointed, I'm not surprised.

I've signed several petitions to start an impeachment movement for Bush, and I only hope that something can be done before he's out of office. It doesn't look that way, but I can hope. Both of his terms have been full of things like this, one fuck up after another, and people have finally been getting tired of it. Wish people had realized this when they voted him in the first time...

Anyway... OBAMA 2008! *runs*

[Magmar]

Bush needs to die o_o;;

yes that's my opinion on the subject ^_^;; he's done *nothing* right..

[Blademaster]

Bush needs to die o_o;;

Nahhhhh - as Dru pointed out, he's too funny to die. He should get his own TV show... Maybe call it That's My Dubya...

[Heald]

Either way it is sad that he has to step down for something that is perfectly legal and within the President's Power. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President has the decision to keep or fire them. But hey the Democrats saw fit to try and get him fired for something perfectly legal in a attempt to do nothing but try and go after Bush Administration Officials, instead of create bills and produce legislature.

Sorry to interject, but surely if he feels that he didn't do anything wrong, surely he wouldn't be obliged to step down?

Of course, we are talking about the ethics of a man who wanted to suspend the right of habeas corpus, widely accepted by most except military dictators as a basic human right, and also said in a private memo that the Geneva convention didn't apply to the US regarding the torture of captured foreigners. Of course, this private memo wouldn't have done any harm if it wasn't sent to an easily influenced idiot who happened to be in charge of a superpower, and sent by a man whom said idiot believed to be some kind of legal expert.

The President does have the legal power to dismiss Federal Prosecutors, who, by convention, are supposed to be non-partisan and independent in every aspect from political parties, for not toeing the Republican party line, even if most of the dismissed prosecutors in the controversial case concering Gonzales had excellent legal reconds. I guess the President and his yes-men, such as the departing Attorney-General, think that calling someone a pinko commie is sufficient grounds for their dismissal, but unfortunately for them we're not in the McCarthyism era anymore.

However, Roy, I'll have you know that I have many examples of useful legislature that the democratically-elected Congress has been passing or attempting to pass, such as the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, to ensure crooks with a personal beef against certain Prosectors can't bypass the system using a legal loophole, or the vetoed Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, vetoed by a simpleton because the Bible specifically says Stem Cell research is evil. Take that cripples and dying people! Healthy people are the future!

[Roy Karrde]

Sorry to interject, but surely if he feels that he didn't do anything wrong, surely he wouldn't be obliged to step down?

Keeping him in office would continue the fishing expedition by the Democrats, who would most likely redouble their efforts to try and send him to jail and turn the attention away from any success in Iraq.

Of course, we are talking about the ethics of a man who wanted to suspend the right of habeas corpus, widely accepted by most except military dictators as a basic human right, and also said in a private memo that the Geneva convention didn't apply to the US regarding the torture of captured foreigners. Of course, this private memo wouldn't have done any harm if it wasn't sent to an easily influenced idiot who happened to be in charge of a superpower, and sent by a man whom said idiot believed to be some kind of legal expert.

I am sure you have forgotten that Habeas Corpus has been suspended or limit in one way or the other in the United States during extrodinary circumstances. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for one, as well as suspention during the Civil War and Reconstruction. As for the foreigners that have been taken off to be tortured, there are 11 total.

Also I have found some interesting things about the Private Memo.

Gonzales authored a controversial memo in January of 2002 that explored whether Article III of the Geneva Convention applied to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and against providing Article III protection to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He concluded that Article III was outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". He also argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He also argued that undefined language in the Geneva Convention, such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment", could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes Act of 1996 if mistreatment was discovered

So I take it you believe that Al Qaeda fighters should recieve "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". Brilliant! Lets give bomb makers Scientific Equipment becuase the Geneva Convention says so! Really, he is right, the Geneva Convention is as out dated as our original post war plan. We are in a new type of war, and need a new type of rules.

Anyway Here are the list of men that have disapeared from Guitmo and US Custody to be tortured,

Ibn al-Shaikh al-Libi one of the most wanted Al Qaeda leaders, arrested in 2001.

Abu Zubayda, senior Al Qaeda planner, arrested in March 2002

Omar al-Faruq, the go between man between Al Qaeda and South East Asia Terrorist, arrested in June 2002

Abu Zubair al-Haili, ran Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, arrested in June 2002.

Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the attempted high jackers in 9/11, he was denied access to the US, so another was sent in his place.

Arrested in September 2002.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Chief of Al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf

Arrested in November 2002

Mustafa al-Hawsawi, source of transactions between Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda opperatives.

Arrested in March 2003.

Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, this bastard needs no introduction.

Waleed Muhammad bin Attash, Al Qaeda's top operation's commander, who planned the USS Cole Bombing.

Arrested April 2003.

Adil al-Jazeeri, Aranged money for Al Qaeda, and prepared Visas.

Arrested in June 2003

Hambali, the man known as the South East Asia Bin Laden, who worked with most South East Asia groups and transfered information back to Al Qaeda.

Arrested in August 2003.

Now tell me, which one of these men deserve Habius Corpus? Which one of these men deserves not to be tortured until they are just a pile of bones? How many lives did torturing these disgusting human beings save? Thousands? Millions? Your's? Mine? Your Family's? My Family's? How many Al Qaeda opperatives has it rooted out? How many attacks has it prevented?

Also calling Bush a easily influenced idiot, shows just how Ignorant and Politically biased you are.

The President does have the legal power to dismiss Federal Prosecutors, who, by convention, are supposed to be non-partisan and independent in every aspect from political parties, for not toeing the Republican party line, even if most of the dismissed prosecutors in the controversial case concering Gonzales had excellent legal reconds. I guess the President and his yes-men, such as the departing Attorney-General, think that calling someone a pinko commie is sufficient grounds for their dismissal, but unfortunately for them we're not in the McCarthyism era anymore.

As you have pointed out the President has any and every reason to dismiss them. The same as Clinton did when he fired all of his Federal Prosecutors when he took office. The truth is you have no idea why they were fired, there is rampent speculation, and if it is found that some of these Prosecutors were not being non partisan, or independent. If they were choosing say a Liberal side or even a Conservative side, then they deserved to be fired.

However, Roy, I'll have you know that I have many examples of useful legislature that the democratically-elected Congress has been passing or attempting to pass, such as the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, to ensure crooks with a personal beef against certain Prosectors can't bypass the system using a legal loophole, or the vetoed Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, vetoed by a simpleton because the Bible specifically says Stem Cell research is evil. Take that cripples and dying people! Healthy people are the future!

Well we knew the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act wouldn't pass, so they waisted their time and our tax dollars even going after it. As for the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, it sounds like nothing more than a Piss Poor Partisan act that would only come back and bite the Democrats the minute a Democrat President fires a Prosecutor. Now lets look at some of the other great things the Democrats have done.

Voting to retreat the surge the minute has started to work, even threatning to cut funding to soldiers. Not to mention the Majority Whip saying the Democrats would be in alot of trouble if the surge worked.

Placing forth over 400 subpoena's to do nothing but draw a divide between the White House and the Congress, and doing nothing more than looking Congress look weak, pathetic, and Partisan.

Oh yes, and they have renamed many many Post Offices, that is their true successful bill, renaming Post Offices and Raising the Minimum Wage.

What happened to all of those 100 Hours speaches? What happened to ending corruption in the House? What happened to ending Pork Projects? None of them have come to fruitition, and where is the Congress now? At 18 percent approval rating! How is their handling of Iraq? Down to 3%! How piss poor is that?

[Drusilla]

Now tell me, which one of these men deserve Habius Corpus? Which one of these men deserves not to be tortured until they are just a pile of bones?

Say who and who doesn't deserve true justice is not our place to say; we're all human, and we can make mistakes. To err is human, and all that. EVERY person deserves the right of Habeas Corpus, no matter what we believe or not. It's a basic American principle, and just because they're part of an organization with a vendetta against our country doesn't mean we can just ditch our morals over it. I'm not saying that they're innocent, but unless there's proof, everything is subject to questioning.

Anyway, I was watching 60 Minutes last night and they said that one of the biggest problems with the Iraq fiasco right now is the lack of protection that we're offering to Iraqis who help us. There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who have risked EVERYTHING to help us liberate their people, and are now living in fear because insurgents are threatening their families and themselves for helping the US. What are we doing? NOTHING. We're not lifting a finger to help these people who would have died for us. Sure, the government is supposed to bring 3,000 or so over to the US by next month, but they said that back in March. How many have been moved? About 100. Why? "Security". These people are living with a death sentence because they helped us, and we're screening them as damned terrorists. Paranoid, are we?

In 1975 (I think... I should check the dates, but I'm too lazy) we imported something like 130,000 Vietnamese into the US after the fall of Saigon. That was in a matter of months! Yes, it's a different age now, but we're hardly doing anything. We have more resources now, shouldn't we be even better prepared to help the Iraqis that have helped us? I think the problem is that the government doesn't care.

And where is this going to put us when we next need help? This is the message we're giving the world: You help us, we'll use you, then you're on your own. We don't give a damn.

Iraq is NOT a success, it's a damn fiasco. The President and all of his goons should be tried for war crimes. We go over there to "liberate" the people, and we're not doing a damn thing to actually help them. Yes, Hussein needed to be taken down, but it should have been done with the UN behind us. There was a reason the UN was formed in the first place, and if we're going to run around playing global bad cop, we should be able to fix the messes we've made as well. So far, all that's been done is in the name of cover-up. One thing after another has been brought up to change the focus of the nation so that people won't realize what a mistake this was in the first place.

[Roy Karrde]

Say who and who doesn't deserve true justice is not our place to say; we're all human, and we can make mistakes. To err is human, and all that. EVERY person deserves the right of Habeas Corpus, no matter what we believe or not. It's a basic American principle, and just because they're part of an organization with a vendetta against our country doesn't mean we can just ditch our morals over it. I'm not saying that they're innocent, but unless there's proof, everything is subject to questioning.

These men were top officials of Al Qaeda, many of which planned terror attacks. Putting them in the legal system would tie it up for months if not years and expose sources. Mean while we could take them, over to Pakistan and find out about informations of on going Al Qaeda missions they know about? Which one is more important? Giving them lawyers to drag out legal proceedings to months? If not years? Or find out what they know now and save lives.

Its funny when Khalid Shaikh Muhammad was arrested, he told the Soldiers to take him to New York and to take him to his lawyers. Where did he go? He went to Pakistan, and becuase so we discovered Al Qaeda agents living inside of the US.

Anyway, I was watching 60 Minutes last night and they said that one of the biggest problems with the Iraq fiasco right now is the lack of protection that we're offering to Iraqis who help us. There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who have risked EVERYTHING to help us liberate their people, and are now living in fear because insurgents are threatening their families and themselves for helping the US. What are we doing? NOTHING. We're not lifting a finger to help these people who would have died for us. Sure, the government is supposed to bring 3,000 or so over to the US by next month, but they said that back in March. How many have been moved? About 100. Why? "Security". These people are living with a death sentence because they helped us, and we're screening them as damned terrorists. Paranoid, are we?

Seeing how they come from a society and life style that gratifies death and is out to kill us, then yes we should screen them for terrorist intentions. We should also move them out of harms way and expeed the process.

In 1975 (I think... I should check the dates, but I'm too lazy) we imported something like 130,000 Vietnamese into the US after the fall of Saigon. That was in a matter of months! Yes, it's a different age now, but we're hardly doing anything. We have more resources now, shouldn't we be even better prepared to help the Iraqis that have helped us? I think the problem is that the government doesn't care.

The only problem lies is that if one of these men did come out and particpate in a terrorist attack, then everyone would be wondering why we didn't take more procautions. It's better to be safe than sorry, it was a hard lesson for our nation to learn, but we are starting to learn it.

And where is this going to put us when we next need help? This is the message we're giving the world: You help us, we'll use you, then you're on your own. We don't give a damn.

Tell that to Anbar Provence, where the people are standing up against the Insurgents. Tell that to the people that are coming up to our troops each day now to point out suspisous activity. People are even hanging bells from their houses to alert the troops when the Insurgents are in the area.

Iraq is NOT a success, it's a damn fiasco.

Right now we are pushing the Insurgents back and gaining ground, I would consider that a Success, or atleast winning.

The President and all of his goons should be tried for war crimes.

Now your own Political Bigotry is showing through.

We go over there to "liberate" the people, and we're not doing a damn thing to actually help them.

If you havn't noticed we have a Surge of troops over there to help them, that is actually going in and rooting out terrorists.

Yes, Hussein needed to be taken down, but it should have been done with the UN behind us. There was a reason the UN was formed in the first place, and if we're going to run around playing global bad cop, we should be able to fix the messes we've made as well.

If you havn't noticed yet, and I doubt you have, but the UN is incredibly corrupt and slow to act. There were so many different pieces of legislation that the UN passed that Saddam violated that he should have been taken out in 1994. Why wasn't he? Well have you heard of the Oil for Food Scandal? People can be bought for the price, even UN Representatives.

QUOTE=Drusilla;342189]So far, all that's been done is in the name of cover-up. One thing after another has been brought up to change the focus of the nation so that people won't realize what a mistake this was in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Okay now you are starting to drone off on something I cant even understand. If you are talking about what is happening in Congress right now, it's called a Fishing Expedition, the Republican Congress did the exact same stupid thing to the Clinton Administration in 1998. They get what little they possibly can to try and get a Administration, and then call forth every big name possible, so that they can quiz them every which way, and if they slip up, or forget. Then they are slapped with purgery. It's a disgusting horrible practice, no matter which side of the isle does it.

[Drusilla]

If you havn't noticed yet, and I doubt you have, but the UN is incredibly corrupt and slow to act.

And our government is incredibly corrupt and too quick to act.

Okay now you are starting to drone off on something I cant even understand.

No, I'm talking about how every time someone points out something that shouldn't have been done, the administration changes the subject. Oh, look, we're pushing them back! Oh, look, these people are happy to see US soldiers! Oh, look, the Goodyear Blimp!

[Roy Karrde]

And our government is incredibly corrupt and too quick to act.

I would take our Government over the UN any day of the week. The UN will not act for anything. From Genocide to Saddam's WMDs. They will allow dictators to push them around and all the UN will do is shake their finger at them.

No, I'm talking about how every time someone points out something that shouldn't have been done, the administration changes the subject. Oh, look, we're pushing them back! Oh, look, these people are happy to see US soldiers! Oh, look, the Goodyear Blimp!

Funny sounds like what the Democrats in Congress are doing right now with all the good news coming out in Iraq. Trying to change the attention to what they think are failures of the administration to try and distract people from the news that America is actually WINNING.

[Drusilla]

I would take our Government over the UN any day of the week. The UN will not act for anything. From Genocide to Saddam's WMDs. They will allow dictators to push them around and all the UN will do is shake their finger at them.

Don't get me started on the weapons of mass destruction bullshit... please don't... I'm really trying to keep a level head on this.

Funny sounds like what the Democrats in Congress are doing right now with all the good news coming out in Iraq. Trying to change the attention to what they think are failures of the administration to try and distract people from the news that America is actually WINNING.

How can we say that we're winning when people are dying? We supposedly went over there to help... and people on both sides are dying, mostly innocents. I can't even listen to all the crap on the news because it makes me sick. In war, if you can call this war, no one wins. If there are things that the government is or isn't doing that worsen the situation, I don't think that sounds like "changing attention". That's called criticism, which is part of what they're supposed to do. Calling attention, not changing it, to the things that could and should be better; it's part of checks and balances.

Don't call me a "political bigot" if you're one as well. I'm not so much "ZOMG DEMOCRAT!!!!!" as pro-change. I see something that I don't like, and I want it changed. It's not about parties or being a blind follower, it's about supporting political change.

[Blademaster]

Seeing how they come from a society and life style that gratifies death and is out to kill us, then yes we should screen them for terrorist intentions.

That is disgustingly racist even for a conservative: You're basically saying that everyone in Iraq/the Middle East is suspect to be an insane death-worshipper that wants us all dead.

The only problem lies is that if one of these men did come out and particpate in a terrorist attack, then everyone would be wondering why we didn't take more procautions. It's better to be safe than sorry, it was a hard lesson for our nation to learn, but we are starting to learn it.

Safety and paranoia are two different things, and we're already teetering on the verge of passing the second one. We stopped being 'safe' a long time ago, more from our own leaders than any terrorists.

Right now we are pushing the Insurgents back and gaining ground, I would consider that a Success, or at least winning.

Hooray for us - we're winning a fight that we started and have screwed up in every possible way since.

Now your own Political Bigotry is showing through.

1. You don't address a woman like that. Especially one who's a friend of mine.

2. If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

If you havn't noticed we have a Surge of troops over there to help them, that is actually going in and rooting out terrorists.

Yeah - troops that were sent there for more or less no reason. Six years after 9/11, and Bush's bandwagon *still* hasn't figured out that they're in the wrong damn country.

If you havn't noticed yet, and I doubt you have, but the UN is incredibly corrupt and slow to act. There were so many different pieces of legislation that the UN passed that Saddam violated that he should have been taken out in 1994. Why wasn't he? Well have you heard of the Oil for Food Scandal? People can be bought for the price, even UN Representatives.

If that's your description of the UN, then I'd call Bush & Pals downright criminals with the reaction speed of a braindead Slowpoke on horse tranquilizers. And in case you haven't noticed, the Bush administration has a price, too, but that's another subject altogether.

[Roy Karrde]

Don't get me started on the weapons of mass destruction bullshit... please don't... I'm really trying to keep a level head on this.

Seeing how in 2002 the UN allowed Saddam to keep the inspectors out of areas or kept them waiting for hours, and in 1994 the UN Inspectors had to sit around with their thumbs up their butts while Saddam hid weapons and burned documents right infront of them. What did the UN do? Thumb their finger at them and said he shouldn't do that again.

How can we say that we're winning when people are dying? We supposedly went over there to help... and people on both sides are dying, mostly innocents. I can't even listen to all the crap on the news because it makes me sick. In war, if you can call this war, no one wins. If there are things that the government is or isn't doing that worsen the situation, I don't think that sounds like "changing attention". That's called criticism, which is part of what they're supposed to do. Calling attention, not changing it, to the things that could and should be better; it's part of checks and balances.

First most of the people we are killing over there are Al Qaeda terrorists who make up the majority of the Insurgents now, and have provided for almost 80% of the suicide bombings. Now excuse me but I thought the over all goal for us was to kill Al Qaeda.

As for changing attention, once news started coming out that we were pushing Al Qaeda back, and making areas like Anbar and Baghdad safer. What did the Democrats do? They said that our troops were Blood Thursty killers, they said we snuck into Iraqi Houses and tortured Iraqi's in the middle of the night. They said that we were air raiding Iraqi villages and killing them in cold blood. These turned out to be false by the way, but why should they care? Good news out of Iraq makes Bush look good and we sure as hell cant have that.

Don't call me a "political bigot" if you're one as well. I'm not so much "ZOMG DEMOCRAT!!!!!" as pro-change. I see something that I don't like, and I want it changed. It's not about parties or being a blind follower, it's about supporting political change.

You are the one that said Bush should be brought up on War Crimes, that sounds like Political Bigotry to me

That is disgustingly racist even for a conservative: You're basically saying that everyone in Iraq/the Middle East is suspect to be an insane death-worshipper that wants us all dead.

If you havn't noticed, most of the mosques in the Middle East do preach death and try to convert them into insane death worshippers. In Palestine they even run comercials and TV shows glorifying death and killing innocent people. Now there is a difference between being racist and pointing out a true fact of what has been happening over there for the last twenty years.

Safety and paranoia are two different things, and we're already teetering on the verge of passing the second one. We stopped being 'safe' a long time ago, more from our own leaders than any terrorists.

Agreed, but swinging the other way and throwing safety out the window is also ignorant and reckless.

Hooray for us - we're winning a fight that we started and have screwed up in every possible way since.

I would think the main argument would be that we are winning against mainly Al Qaeda militants.

1. You don't address a woman like that. Especially one who's a friend of mine

She brought herself into the debate, and wrote a completely ignorant statement. I do not care if she is a woman or a man, or a friend of yours. I call it like I see it.

2. If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

I would think it would be more like myself saying that most of the upper leadership of the Democratic party should be thrown in jail for treason would be me showing Political Bigotry. I don't think I have made a statement even close to what Dru made.

Yeah - troops that were sent there for more or less no reason. Six years after 9/11, and Bush's bandwagon *still* hasn't figured out that they're in the wrong damn country.

Saddam violated UN Resolutions when it comes to inspectors which allows for war. Saddam constantly tortured his own people and killed thousands more in mass graves which is against UN and US laws. Saddam provided support to Hamas and allowed terrorist from Al Qaeda to move through his country and provided aid to them, which is anothe reason to take him down. Oh yeah and there was that little thing about Saddam trying to gain Nuclear Weapons.

As for being in the wrong Damn Country, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we go through Afghanistan? Didn't we win the war there and take down the Taliban? Didn't we set up a Government there and drove the Taliban to being nothing more than a Remnant of it's past self? Then again I could be wrong

If that's your description of the UN, then I'd call Bush & Pals downright criminals with the reaction speed of a braindead Slowpoke on horse tranquilizers. And in case you haven't noticed, the Bush administration has a price, too, but that's another subject altogether.

Criminals? Now I see your bigotry is starting to show too in a gross over statement.

[Heald]

Blah blah blah Partisan drivel

Of course, that would be too easy, but there are several reasons why I should totally disregard this post as asinine nonsense, but just one quote just proves what banal balderdash that one post contained.

Also calling Bush a easily influenced idiot, shows just how Ignorant and Politically biased you are.

Open your eyes: Bush is a complete and utter idiot. He is not fit to run a country. Hell, he isn't fit to run a cheese cracker. How am I ignorant and politically biased? If anything I am non partisan and completely objective in this, considering I have no allegiance to any political party in the US, or in fact any American political perspective. Bush is an incompetent fool - half of the US seems to think this and pretty much 100% of the world outside of the US agree in unison that Bush is the biggest practical joke ever to hit the Earth. You might as well have put a chimp in front of a control with a bunch of big buttons saying 'Tax cuts for the rich', 'Invade oil-rich countries with no exit-plan' and 'Take away basic civil liberties under the guise of antiterrorism'. There is an age-old saying that goes 'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both', and nothing could be more true in the case of a post-Bush world. Thanks to his piss-poor management of his forays in the Middle-East, not only has he pissed off most of the Middle-Eastern world, but he has succeeded in taking away basic civil liberties. Of course, if you do it under something called the PATRIOT Act, anyone who is against the PATRIOT Act is, obviously, unAmerican, and anyone who is unAmerican is, in fact, a TERRORIST. Even some of the most diehard Republicans have realised that Bush wasn't exactly the best horse to back in hindsight. It is just a shame that there are still so many flag-waving idiots out there who take every word Bush says as gospel.

Keeping him in office would continue the fishing expedition by the Democrats, who would most likely redouble their efforts to try and send him to jail and turn the attention away from any success in Iraq.

Iraq was never going to be a success. Not with Bush at the reins. A Democrat Congress has been left with a mighty mess thanks to Bush's mismanagement and with only six short months to sort it out, plus with Bush vetoing the one useful Bill regarding Iraq, it is no surprise that Iraq hasn't become an immediate success story. Guess what! Even if the Republicans were still in charge, Iraq would still be a complete mess. Besides, since it's Bush's army in Iraq and he is the Commander-in-Chief, isn't it his duty and not Congress' to sort out the mess he made? I guess Bush has a problem in sleeping the same bed he has made.

I am sure you have forgotten that Habeas Corpus has been suspended or limit in one way or the other in the United States during extrodinary circumstances. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for one, as well as suspention during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

So because the US made a law suspending basic human rights for anyone they suspect of being a terrorist, that makes it okay? You say that 11 terrorists have been caught because the US denied them their human rights, but many innocent people have been, and still are, and will continue to be, held illegally in prisons like Gitmo simply for being suspects. The cost is far too great. When one society can jet around the world and kidnap foreigners just because they looked at them funny, that is true terror striking the human race.

So I take it you believe that Al Qaeda fighters should recieve "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". Brilliant! Lets give bomb makers Scientific Equipment becuase the Geneva Convention says so! Really, he is right, the Geneva Convention is as out dated as our original post war plan. We are in a new type of war, and need a new type of rules.

We both know that Gonzales wasn't talking about this part of the Geneva convention so merely mentioning it is insulting to both of us and makes it a worthless strawman. Gonzales was referring to cold, hard torture, which he believed, as long as the prisoner didn't have organ failure or die, was perfectly legal. So much for the land of the free and brave, since free and brave men are defined by their ability to attach a car battery to the genitals of a foreigner whom they suspect of terrorist activity.

Now tell me, which one of these men deserve Habius Corpus? Which one of these men deserves not to be tortured until they are just a pile of bones? How many lives did torturing these disgusting human beings save? Thousands? Millions? Your's? Mine? Your Family's? My Family's? How many Al Qaeda opperatives has it rooted out? How many attacks has it prevented?

Saddam Hussein tortured many people whom he believed were commiting crimes against the state and were poised to attack him, his family or his people. Going back further, the Soviets had a terrible track record of torturing those they believed were planning crimes against them. If America is going to denounce these nations and leaders as hives of human rights atrocities, then it better damned well practise what it preaches.

You ask these questions, yet don't answer them. Do you know how many operatives these tortures rooted out or attacks were stopped? Obviously you must, since Bush told you loyal sheeple the truth. Of course, he would never say that he tortured hundreds of suspects and rooted out no terrorists, or stopped no attacks, because that would make him look worse than the same war criminal his army overthrew and handed over to a bloodthirsty mob.

As you have pointed out the President has any and every reason to dismiss them. The same as Clinton did when he fired all of his Federal Prosecutors when he took office. The truth is you have no idea why they were fired, there is rampent speculation, and if it is found that some of these Prosecutors were not being non partisan, or independent. If they were choosing say a Liberal side or even a Conservative side, then they deserved to be fired.

All the prosecutors fired had an excellent legal record, and all the prosecutors had been under fire from the Bush administration for not toeing the Republican party line. I guess it was just a coincidence that Bush had a personal beef with these prosecutors that they all got fired and not because they were all excellent at their job, instead of being sucking-up Yesmen like the prosecutors that Bush installed that replaced them.

Well we knew the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act wouldn't pass, so they waisted their time and our tax dollars even going after it. As for the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, it sounds like nothing more than a Piss Poor Partisan act that would only come back and bite the Democrats the minute a Democrat President fires a Prosecutor. Now lets look at some of the other great things the Democrats have done.

Actually, the Stem Cell Act was an excellent initiative, and it was Bush that wasted the time and money by throwing it out because he is a little crybaby who has no understanding of religion or ethics whatsoever. Literally thousands of people must have contributed to putting that Act together, and in one fell swoop, some idiot with a skewed Christian agenda (so much for separation of Church and state) ruins the work of thousands, purely out of spite, rather than any meaningful political or rational reason whatsoever.

As for the Attorney Independence Act, so what if it going to bite them on the ass? Surely that is in the interests of democracy and corruption? Now that is passed, the Democrats can't pull the same trick that the Republicans pulled. Last time I checked, closing a malign and frankly awful legal loophole was a good thing, no matter what party does it.

Voting to retreat the surge the minute has started to work, even threatning to cut funding to soldiers. Not to mention the Majority Whip saying the Democrats would be in alot of trouble if the surge worked.

Placing forth over 400 subpoena's to do nothing but draw a divide between the White House and the Congress, and doing nothing more than looking Congress look weak, pathetic, and Partisan.

Oh yes, and they have renamed many many Post Offices, that is their true successful bill, renaming Post Offices and Raising the Minimum Wage.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats, since frankly they're nearly as bad as the Republicans. What I will say though is that you have named 3 seemingly terrible things that the Democrats have done here, yet I could name thousands of piss-poor and terrible things the Republicans did in their eight years of tyrannical rule.

But I totally agree with you on the minimum wage front. Seriously, what we need is more poor people earning less money, since huge MNCs can't afford to pay their overworked, underpaid employees an extra 10 cents an hour because their boards of directors need their extra billion dollar bonuses every month.

What happened to all of those 100 Hours speaches? What happened to ending corruption in the House? What happened to ending Pork Projects? None of them have come to fruitition, and where is the Congress now? At 18 percent approval rating! How is their handling of Iraq? Down to 3%! How piss poor is that?

It's pretty hard to try and run a House when nearly half of it are Republicans who are simply being unuseful and voting against everything just out of spite of not being the majority party instead of simply following common sense. Plus, considering when the Republicans realised they were no longer going to be the majority party, they more or less scuttled the house to leave a huge mess for the Democrats to pick up.

Considering most changes the House enacts will take a couple of years to take full effect, judging their performance on their first six months is pretty damned stupid.

[Roy Karrde]

Open your eyes: Bush is a complete and utter idiot. He is not fit to run a country. Hell, he isn't fit to run a cheese cracker. How am I ignorant and politically biased? If anything I am non partisan and completely objective in this, considering I have no allegiance to any political party in the US, or in fact any American political perspective. Bush is an incompetent fool - half of the US seems to think this and pretty much 100% of the world outside of the US agree in unison that Bush is the biggest practical joke ever to hit the Earth. You might as well have put a chimp in front of a control with a bunch of big buttons saying 'Tax cuts for the rich', 'Invade oil-rich countries with no exit-plan' and 'Take away basic civil liberties under the guise of antiterrorism'. There is an age-old saying that goes 'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both', and nothing could be more true in the case of a post-Bush world. Thanks to his piss-poor management of his forays in the Middle-East, not only has he pissed off most of the Middle-Eastern world, but he has succeeded in taking away basic civil liberties. Of course, if you do it under something called the PATRIOT Act, anyone who is against the PATRIOT Act is, obviously, unAmerican, and anyone who is unAmerican is, in fact, a TERRORIST. Even some of the most diehard Republicans have realised that Bush wasn't exactly the best horse to back in hindsight. It is just a shame that there are still so many flag-waving idiots out there who take every word Bush says as gospel.

Aww what a cute, narrowminded, if not blinded statement. I would respond but really it is just a missmash of Political Drival. That has no real point other than to insult a leader you do not agree with it. Quite sad really.

Iraq was never going to be a success. Not with Bush at the reins. A Democrat Congress has been left with a mighty mess thanks to Bush's mismanagement and with only six short months to sort it out, plus with Bush vetoing the one useful Bill regarding Iraq, it is no surprise that Iraq hasn't become an immediate success story. Guess what! Even if the Republicans were still in charge, Iraq would still be a complete mess. Besides, since it's Bush's army in Iraq and he is the Commander-in-Chief, isn't it his duty and not Congress' to sort out the mess he made? I guess Bush has a problem in sleeping the same bed he has made.

So what is going to happen if Petraus comes back from Iraq and says things are going well? That the surge is pushing back Al Qaeda, and that we are making large strides militarily. Is that not sorting out the mess? But then again the Democrats in Congress are obsessed with playing Commander in Chief and try to pull the troops out even though things are beginning to go well and we are actually winning. But if you want you can bury your head in the sand and scream "Bush is Bad, Iraq is going terrible."

So because the US made a law suspending basic human rights for anyone they suspect of being a terrorist, that makes it okay? You say that 11 terrorists have been caught because the US denied them their human rights, but many innocent people have been, and still are, and will continue to be, held illegally in prisons like Gitmo simply for being suspects. The cost is far too great. When one society can jet around the world and kidnap foreigners just because they looked at them funny, that is true terror striking the human race.

And you believe all of those in Guitmo are innocent suspects? Most are prisoners of war captured on the battlefield, and would kill you just if you looked at them. As for the 11 detained, those 11 have not gone to Guitmo but to places to actually be interrogated and tortured becuase they are high value targets that know things, and have provided near invaluable information.

We both know that Gonzales wasn't talking about this part of the Geneva convention so merely mentioning it is insulting to both of us and makes it a worthless strawman.

Have you read the entire memo? From what I hear about it he argues both sides.

Gonzales was referring to cold, hard torture, which he believed, as long as the prisoner didn't have organ failure or die, was perfectly legal. So much for the land of the free and brave, since free and brave men are defined by their ability to attach a car battery to the genitals of a foreigner whom they suspect of terrorist activity.

Again have you read the memo? Are you a mind reader?

Saddam Hussein tortured many people whom he believed were commiting crimes against the state and were poised to attack him, his family or his people.

Saddam also tortured people for the hell of it, his son ran rape squads that would go through the street and pick them out for torturing. He would also create mass graves, now you cannot believe that the hundreds of thousands of those people in the mass graves were becuase he believed they comitted crimes against the state and not just to get his chuckles off.

Going back further, the Soviets had a terrible track record of torturing those they believed were planning crimes against them. If America is going to denounce these nations and leaders as hives of human rights atrocities, then it better damned well practise what it preaches.

Call me when the US starts employing torture techniques on citizens of the United States. Or when they start using techniques in Guitmo that equate to something more than frat house antics.

You ask these questions, yet don't answer them. Do you know how many operatives these tortures rooted out or attacks were stopped? Obviously you must, since Bush told you loyal sheeple the truth. Of course, he would never say that he tortured hundreds of suspects and rooted out no terrorists, or stopped no attacks, because that would make him look worse than the same war criminal his army overthrew and handed over to a bloodthirsty mob.

Lets see three men trying to enter the country and smuggle in rocket launchers were caught by the Patriot act. Mohammad Rauf, a man that was a transport driver and terrorist for Al Qaeda while working in New York was captured using the Patriot Act as well as information gained from torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Lets also not forget the Sears Tower plot which was stopped by the FBI posing as a Al Qaeda member, as well as the Patriot Act.

And these are just three off of the top of my head, I bet I could dig deeper and find lots lots more.

All the prosecutors fired had an excellent legal record, and all the prosecutors had been under fire from the Bush administration for not toeing the Republican party line. I guess it was just a coincidence that Bush had a personal beef with these prosecutors that they all got fired and not because they were all excellent at their job, instead of being sucking-up Yesmen like the prosecutors that Bush installed that replaced them.

You can have a excellent legal record and still be biased. Having a legal record does not determine how you make judgements. Yet either way it is still up to the President to decide if they stay or go, no matter what the excuse.

Actually, the Stem Cell Act was an excellent initiative, and it was Bush that wasted the time and money by throwing it out because he is a little crybaby who has no understanding of religion or ethics whatsoever. Literally thousands of people must have contributed to putting that Act together, and in one fell swoop, some idiot with a skewed Christian agenda (so much for separation of Church and state) ruins the work of thousands, purely out of spite, rather than any meaningful political or rational reason whatsoever.

You know in August 2001, when Bush brokered a deal to allow for some lines of stem cell research to be used for expermentation. He was hailed by making a huge Bi Partisan decision that made both sides happy, that both the Liberal Base would get their stem cells, and the Republican Base would make sure that only some of the Stem Cells could be used with Government Money. Now people harp on him for being a idiot with a skewed Christian Agenda becuase he wont betray the deal and Executive Order he signed into law?

As for the Attorney Independence Act, so what if it going to bite them on the ass? Surely that is in the interests of democracy and corruption? Now that is passed, the Democrats can't pull the same trick that the Republicans pulled. Last time I checked, closing a malign and frankly awful legal loophole was a good thing, no matter what party does it.

You know the Republicans were saying the EXACT same thing when Democrats were trying to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court Choices. It was a awful loop hole in the rules, and they wanted to inact a law that made it where you couldn't filibuster Supreme Court Choices. In the end the law wasn't passed, and for good reason, becuase the next time a Democrat President came into office, they could stack the Supreme Court with as many leftist judges as they wanted. The thing I am trying to get at here, is when a Democrat comes into office, and one will I promise. And he tries to fire a Attorney General. You will have the Republicans trying to screw the Democrat President. No matter how bad that Attorney General is, laws like the Attorney Independence Act are not to fill loop holes, they are pathetic laws to try and hold hearings on something that is a waste of time.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats, since frankly they're nearly as bad as the Republicans. What I will say though is that you have named 3 seemingly terrible things that the Democrats have done here, yet I could name thousands of piss-poor and terrible things the Republicans did in their eight years of tyrannical rule.

Want me to list off all the things the Clinton Administration did under it's tyrannical rule? And I would not count what I listed as three things, seeing how they could be split off as more than three, and could be numbered in the thousands. Especially with the amount of subpoenas.

But I totally agree with you on the minimum wage front. Seriously, what we need is more poor people earning less money, since huge MNCs can't afford to pay their overworked, underpaid employees an extra 10 cents an hour because their boards of directors need their extra billion dollar bonuses every month.

People are not forced to earn a wage at that pay, there are always better paying jobs they can look for. Not to mention with the way that Illigal Immigration is right now, the minimum wage hike only fires more American Workers so that they can hire Illigal Immigrants for a cheaper price.

It's pretty hard to try and run a House when nearly half of it are Republicans who are simply being unuseful and voting against everything just out of spite of not being the majority party instead of simply following common sense.

You mean basically what the Democrats did from 2004 to 2006?

Plus, considering when the Republicans realised they were no longer going to be the majority party, they more or less scuttled the house to leave a huge mess for the Democrats to pick up.

And they have done such a good job, with all the corruption in the Democrat party now, and all the pork projects.

Considering most changes the House enacts will take a couple of years to take full effect, judging their performance on their first six months is pretty damned stupid.

The Democrats were elected on making huge sweeping changes in the first few months. On being Bi Partisan and working with both the Bush Administration and the Congress. In cutting down on Corruption and to allow General Petraus his time in Iraq to see if he could settle the problem. They have not made good on any of their promises.

[Drusilla]

You know what's sad, Roy Karrde? The fact that you've tried to turn what should have been a lively and intellectual debate into little more than a sparring ground for trading insults. You seem to have forgotten everything that our country stands for in your blind following of Bush, such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We're all entitled to our opinions, yet you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is expressing "Stupidty" (and, yes, I quote directly from the term you applied to me in the post that you edited after I reported you for flaming).

Furthermore, you bash the opinion of someone who expresses what he sees from the outside, something that you should be taking to heart rather than degrading. My point about how the world is seeing us is proven, yet you want nothing more than to have the last word, even if you have to sink as low as writing it off as "Political Drival".

The point of a debate is to debate. You have to appreciate what others' opinions are in order to do so, even if you don't agree. If you want to hero worship Bush, I say do it somewhere else. Your twisting of words and facts is doing little more than irritating people; and, yes, I do speak for several others that I have been talking to via MSN for many hours. This is not a court of law, it's a discussion board, and if you don't mind, I think we were having a discussion. If you want to express your views, fine, but don't walk all over mine or anyone else's.

I'm making this a public post because so many people's feathers have been ruffled. No, I'm not overstepping my bounds by playing mod or admin, I'm voicing an opinion, an opinion that is shared by many others, including those who haven't responded to this thread, though judging from your previous posts, you don't seem to care about the opinions of others.

Oh, and don't try to harass me off boards again.

[Roy Karrde]

You know what's sad, Roy Karrde? The fact that you've tried to turn what should have been a lively and intellectual debate into little more than a sparring ground for trading insults. You seem to have forgotten everything that our country stands for in your blind following of Bush, such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We're all entitled to our opinions, yet you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is expressing "Stupidty" (and, yes, I quote directly from the term you applied to me in the post that you edited after I reported you for flaming).

Excuse me first I do not believe you can talk about reported post. Second I did not say Stupidity. Third, should I report Heald's post for calling me pretty damn stupid? This is a debate Dru, grow up will you? Lets also not forget that you added in all this Impeach Bush stuff to even your first post, which I did not comment on. You had just as much of a hand in this debate as myself and everyone else Dru. And just like you I was acting on my Freedom of Speach which you claim that I have forgotten. Grow up Dru, really.

Furthermore, you bash the opinion of someone who expresses what he sees from the outside, something that you should be taking to heart rather than degrading. My point about how the world is seeing us is proven, yet you want nothing more than to have the last word, even if you have to sink as low as writing it off as "Political Drival".

If you hadn't noticed the reason I used the word Political Drival, was becuase that was what Heald had written off my post to be. So I was just paying it back. Now as much as I care about his opinion, saying that Bush is a Bush is a complete and utter idiot, and Hell, he isn't fit to run a cheese cracker. Is just Politically Biased, and very narrow minded. Infact to quote Heald I would call it "pretty damned stupid".

The point of a debate is to debate. You have to appreciate what others' opinions are in order to do so, even if you don't agree.

Funny I thought the point to debate was to argue a view point. Oh how I have been wrong.

If you want to hero worship Bush, I say do it somewhere else.

Funny I thought I had FREEDOM OF SPEACH

Your twisting of words and facts is doing little more than irritating people;

What words did I twist? What facts did I twist?

and, yes, I do speak for several others that I have been talking to via MSN for many hours.

Oh I have full knowledge of your friends who dispise me for one reason or the other. Truely I do not care what they think about what I say. I could say something they agreed with 100% and they would hate me.

This is not a court of law, it's a discussion board, and if you don't mind, I think we were having a discussion. If you want to express your views, fine, but don't walk all over mine or anyone else's.

So on a discussion board I cannot discuss my views? You have told me several times in your post for me to take my Republican View point some where else. Now I am going to give you a little bit of advice Dru. In a debate you pick apart a person's points, mainly using quotes. That is how debating has been done here since TRO.

I'm making this a public post because so many people's feathers have been ruffled. No, I'm not overstepping my bounds by playing mod or admin, I'm voicing an opinion, an opinion that is shared by many others, including those who haven't responded to this thread, though judging from your previous posts, you don't seem to care about the opinions of others.

So in other words you are trying to silence my view point? I would gladly back out of here if we decided to change subjects or stop debating for good. But I have a right to show my view points on issues I care about. Again, Grow Up Dru.

Oh, and don't try to harass me off boards again.

Session Start (big_lutz2001@yahoo.com:Always Second-best...): Mon Aug 27 17:16:14 2007
[17:16] Roy Karrde: You mind telling me how I flamed Blademaster?
[17:18] Always Second-best...: Yeah, actually, I do mind.
[17:18] *** "Always Second-best..." signed off at Mon Aug 27 17:18:26 2007.
Session Close (Always Second-best...): Mon Aug 27 17:18:29 2007

Ohhh such Harassment, I asked a question. Oh man, scary harassment.

[DarkTemplarZero]

I'm just waiting to see how long this debate takes before we prove Godwin's Law yet again ^_^

"The fact that you've tried to turn what should have been a lively and intellectual debate into little more than a sparring ground for trading insults."
And you've responded, so you're no better than he is.

"Now as much as I care about his opinion, saying that Bush is a Bush is a complete and utter idiot, and Hell, he isn't fit to run a cheese cracker. Is just Politically Biased, and very narrow minded."
The vast majority of people would agree. In the words of Mark Cuban, he isn't fit to run a Dairy Queen (I thought you lovebirds from Texas would appreciate that). But once again, calling somebody narrow-minded because they're stating an opinion. Proving Dru's point.

Once again, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded. Why can't we just discuss something useful, like how to survive a Velociraptor attack or the latest XKCD or something like that?

[mr_pikachu]

Okay, I'm gonna stay out of this for the most part. But I will say that I didn't intend for this discussion of Alberto Gonzales to turn into an argument over Iraq, Bush, the treatment of prisoners, etc. Nor did I want it to become an insult-slinging contest.

While I'd like very much to say something like "No talking about ______, ________, and _______ here," most of the things that have been mentioned are partially relevant to the discussion. But can we keep the debate limited to how these things directly relate to Gonzales' performance (and therefore the legitimacy of his being pressured into resignation)? Otherwise this thread's going to finish its degradation into an all-out flame war, and I think this is a topic that deserves to be discussed.

[Blademaster]

Roy Karrde.

I know I'm going to get in some kind of trouble for this, but I don't care - I'm not the first to do it, and seeing people agitate my friends this badly is something I will not tolerate, whatever the cost. So, on behalf of Drusilla, Heald, and everyone else being offended and frustrated by your obstinance and lack of respect, I am posting one final time in this topic.

Roy Karrde, you say to my friend to 'grow up' over and over because you don't respect what she has to say. You also don't respect what Heald has to say, calling him 'politically biased' when he DOESN'T EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Yes, the point to argue in a debate is to express a view point - hopefully, a valid one, something that you seem to deem only to your own posts. Not to write off a ten-line argument against a semi-relevant viewpoint with 'What a narrowminded statement. I don't have to respond to that.' Have you caught DTZ syndrome or something, because it makes you look immature and unable to back up your claims.

And don't be so quick to judge people, either, Mr. I-Think-I-Know-Everything-About-Everything-and-Everyone-Else's-Viewpoints-Pale-In-Comparison-To-Mine: You don't know who Dru's friends are OR how they feel about you. You think I'd agree with you 100% and still hate you? No. I'm pissed off at you now for upsetting my friends, but guess what? I'll get over it.

So, to wrap this up, I think I speak for all of us when I say this:


WE DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE YOUR REPUBLICAN VIEWS OFF THIS BOARD - WE JUST WANT YOU TO REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ASS LONG ENOUGH TO SHOW US SOME RESPECT EVEN WHEN WE TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY BUSH IN VAIN, BECAUSE THAT'S OUR OPINION OF HIM, AND YOU ACTING LIKE A JACKASS TOWARDS EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THAT.


And now, with that having been said, I am leaving this topic. Don't expect to hear from me again here, unless I catch wind of another 'incident' like this.

~Blade

[Magi of all]

OK, first off people. CHILL! I understand that political ties run deep, but that’s no reason to start yelling at each other. Insulting each other’s intelligence is getting us nowhere and causing tempers to run high. Just step back and chill for a minute. Deep breaths people, deep breaths.

The fact that you've tried to turn what should have been a lively and intellectual debate into little more than a sparring ground for trading insults.

On what planet was this lively and intellectual. From about, oh post five onward this thread has become nothing more than an argument about Bush and his policies. Most of which had NOTHING to do with the Attorney General resigning. I don’t follow politics that closely, so I have no clue as to why he resigned. However, it likely has little to do with how the surge is working.

This thread has turned into a battleground between Drusilla and Blademaster against Roy Karde. The problem is you’re all stubborn and biased, no matter how much you deny it. Drusilla and Blademaster have taken the ever-popular stance of anti-Bush whilst Roy has taken the pro-Bush stance. No matter how you slice it this WILL turn into a flame war, at least, more so than it already has.

So what is going to happen if Petraus comes back from Iraq and says things are going well? That the surge is pushing back Al Qaeda, and that we are making large strides militarily. Is that not sorting out the mess?

Yes it is sorting out the mess, but that’s not the point. The point is, Bush had six years to get this sorted out and it’s just now starting to work. Look at how long it took us to get Saddam. Bin Laden is still out there somewhere. Face facts, WE MESSED UP.

That is not to say that I don’t support the surge, especially if it is working. We are making progress and we are taking steps forward. However, that is not winning, it’s doing better.

I’m also against Congress setting a timetable and cutting the budget. The President is, for better or worse, Commander in Chief and he is the one who commands the troops, not Congress. It’s not going change, not matter how much they want it to.

While I’m on the subject of things you have said Roy, I’d like to respond to your attack on Dru’s opinion of Bush. It is her opinion that Bush is a moron. I happen to agree with that opinion. A lot of the decisions he made should have been handled differently. Is it all Bush’s fault? HELL NO. He has a tough job; there is corruption in government, there is a time crunch for making decisions. But still, you can’t eliminate the fact that Bush is not the smartest monkey n the barrel. (NOTE: This saying is in NO WAY implying that Bush is, in any way, a monkey. I am 100% serious)

Once again, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded. Why can't we just discuss something useful, like how to survive a Velociraptor attack or the latest XKCD or something like that?

Wow, congratulations on not getting the mood of this topic at all. What remains of this debate does not need your childish antics. C for comedy, F for effort.

EDIT: The stuff above was typed before Blademaster and mr_pikachu posted.

WE DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE YOUR REPUBLICAN VIEWS OFF THIS BOARD - WE JUST WANT YOU TO REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ASS LONG ENOUGH TO SHOW US SOME RESPECT EVEN WHEN WE TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY BUSH IN VAIN, BECAUSE THAT'S OUR OPINION OF HIM, AND YOU ACTING LIKE A JACKASS TOWARDS EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

Blademaster, I get that your defending you friend and are pissed off and all, but seriously, chill the fuck out for a second. Yelling won't make this any better, it just gives people more stuff to throw back in your face.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Oh shit, it's Mr. I'll-Never-Get-Laid-Because-I-Have-To-Debate-Incessantly-Online ^_^ jk jk. No more flaming. Blade, seriously, you're just lobbing everything on Roy cuz you don't agree with him. Dru's been a bitch for the small portion of the topic that I actually bothered to read. Both of them just need to chill.

[Asilynne]

Say who and who doesn't deserve true justice is not our place to say; we're all human, and we can make mistakes. To err is human, and all that.

I agree completely, that being said, is the president above all the frailties and mistake making that is human? No, everyone makes mistakes, and Im not going to try and say he never made a mistake. I dont think anyone in this topic could hold a presidential office and not make one mistake, thats just how we, as humans, are. Im not making any excuses for the Bush administration, and yes they may have "fucked up" on some things, but you cant go through history and find me a leader that hasnt made a mistake or controversial decision.

Anyway, this is like beating a dead horse. Like him or hate him, next year hes out, so whats the point of impeaching him now? Not like he can be reelected if he wanted to. So you guys can do a lot of talking but the truth is its going to do jack shit except piss people off on the forums and create animosity amoung the peeps in the community here. I suppose if you like to debate its fun but Ive seen a lot of people take the debates into a more personal tone.

"A wise man says more with silence than a fool does with an hours worth of talk" so my dad has said :> Its a good thing to keep in mind when dealing with other people ^-~

Edit: one last thing that everyone can take into account.. If your trying to prove a point, even in cases where you know for sure you will never change the other persons mind, you are more likely to make the person think and consider your point IF: 1) you convey the point in a simple and clear manner, using a lot of unnecissarily big words makes you sound condenscending, not smart. Smart people make points in ways even the simplest person can understand. 2)Cheap shots are a no-no, people are less receptive to you if they feel threatened or insulted by the way your point is presented. And 3) Keep your mind open for things you may have missed. No one has all the right answers and during the course of a debate you may find a piece of your argument is flawed, if such a thing happens it is smarter and gives your argument more weight if you address your mistakes and restate your point keeping in mind what was flawed and not repeating it. That way everyone can have civil and intellegent discussions without seeming like a schoolyard squabble XD

[Roy Karrde]

I suppose if you like to debate its fun but Ive seen a lot of people take the debates into a more personal tone.

Well I want to reply saying I am not responding to Blade's post, I could and want to, but it would just further the cycle. But I do want to respond to this, I really REALLY hope no one takes debates as a reason to hate some one. Debators have to seperate a debate from friendship and the real world. I would have long arguments with DTZ, but him and I are close friends. I mean in a very old debate with Opaque, I called him a Nazi, and him and I are like best friends. There is a debate world, and the real world, you can't let the two merge.

If you let a person's view on issues cause you to hate them, then life will be very harsh. I mean I dislike most of the opinions of actors in Hollywood, but if I took it personally, I would never be able to turn on my television and watch a TV show, becuase when I saw that actor I would automatically assosiate that with what his opinion on a issue is.

I hope that made sense ^_^

[Toxicity]

SPOILER: That's My Dubya would be only the sequel to the funny, yet still short-lived That's My Bush.
FACT: Roy Karrde has been known to consider just about everybody a "close friend" at one point or another.

What I don't know, however, is why just about every time we have a serious discussion, it's going to become a vat of drama and fire being vollied back and forth. And even then, the rotation is never-ending unless the topic is closed or dies off. Usually all by the same people, not naming any names.

But in order to avoid catching more of the fire in my direction by "ZOHMAIGAWD DIRECTLY ASSAULTING" somebody just for stating my opinion (I was also figuratively leapt onto just for saying that I thought the show Lil' Bush was rathing amusing) about an issue, I'll cut it there and respond to the original topic...



What's somewhat confusing me is that the administration is now starting to drop over once again as it had post-election season. I may not be so clear on memory only because of my age at the time, but I don't recall any resignations underneath Clinton in his final term. (and NO, not because any that happened, if they happened, were sheltered by the Lewinsky case) But even then, one would assume that the only true wave of resignations would come, of course, post-election, and after that you're guaranteed to stay for the rest of the presidency.

But what is odd is why you'd resign when you were appointed in place of a resignee. But I think there's a deeper issue into just what most news stations are placing out there. Sure, I won't lie when I say that I think he made a few mistakes, but this situation seems like more as Gonzales being the type to buckle under pressure like many of us. Which I guess could relate to the whole "I don't knows."

I don't even think this is totally his fault if at all, and even then seems like a vague reminder of Scooter Libby. But there's still time to go deeper into the story.

[Roy Karrde]

You know to get back on topic, but here is a question I have been wondering. Where has Lulac been during all of this? The League of United Latin American Citizens, will protest when they believe a injustice has been done to any Latin American citizen, or even when a Illigal Immigrant is being deported. But when a Latin American is being beaten up and rail roaded out by a bunch of white men, suddenly they are silent?

Doesn't that go against what LULAC stands for?

[Heald]

I agree that LULAC should be involved when an injustice has been done against a Latin American citizen. However, the only people who are blinkered enough to believe an injustice has been done here are Bush and the most loyal and small-minded of Bushites, and I think they're all too busy whining about how illegal immigrant 'beaners' are coming over from South of the border and taking their jerbs to be active LULAC members.

I'd also like to retract a statement I made earlier. I believe I said something to the effect of Republicans making thousands of fuck-ups, piss-poor decisions and atrocities in their tyrannical eight year rule. This is, quite obviously, false. The Republicans are only six and a half years (give or take a few months) through their tyrannical rule. Aside from that one mistake, the rest of the post is factually correct.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree that LULAC should be involved when an injustice has been done against a Latin American citizen.

It doesn't matter if a injustice has been done or not. They protest when a Illigal Immigrant is sent home too, even though they break the law. You may not have far left racist organizations in England like LULAC or the NAACP. But here they tend to not care about innocent or guilty, they just stick up for the person that is their race.

However, the only people who are blinkered enough to believe an injustice has been done here are Bush and the most loyal and small-minded of Bushites,

You are absolutely right. People that have been implicated in Fishing Expeditions must have done a injustice. I guess that means Bill Clinton is guilty of having sex in a political building, as well as taking campeign donations from China, both of which are completely illigal. But lets not stop there, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security advisor hid documents from the 9/11 comission. Lets all throw them in jail! Becuase people taken infront of Partisan comittiees are automatically guilty right? Only "loyal and small-minded" people believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

and I think they're all too busy whining about how illegal immigrant 'beaners' are coming over from South of the border and taking their jerbs to be active LULAC members.

Yeah becuase Illigal Immigrants do so much for our economy, costing us over 100 Billion dollars a year, not paying taxes, and in the end costing us more money than putting it in. It is just so much to whine about, I mean our economy and everything. How stupid of the Republicans, why whine about small things about the economy and the possible security problem with our borders. We should focus on much bigger things like naming post offices and fishing investigations!

Also speaking of active LULAC Members, several notable supporters of LULAC are: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Democrat Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, and Nancy Pelosi. But hey there is no partisan reason for why LULAC isn't protesting right?

By the way, Bush supported legalizing Illigal Immigrants and opening up a Guest Worker Program, something that LULAC heavily favored and endorsed him for just a few months ago.

I'd also like to retract a statement I made earlier. I believe I said something to the effect of Republicans making thousands of fuck-ups, piss-poor decisions and atrocities in their tyrannical eight year rule. This is, quite obviously, false. The Republicans are only six and a half years (give or take a few months) through their tyrannical rule. Aside from that one mistake, the rest of the post is factually correct.

Well seeing how we were talking about Republican Control over CONGRESS. Then they were in control from 1994 to 2006. Now I know there are different systems to measure things in England. But on this side of the pond, that is 12 years. Not 6 years, not 8 years, but 12 years. And hey I am glad you have taken such a good interest in politics over those twelve years. Can you tell me the web site to view all congressional documents? Here I will give you a free answer on that one, it's http://thomas.loc.gov/ But I bet you already knew that.

And I take it you have also read all of those documents. Becuase that way you could only make a sound judgement on how the Republicans did.

If you want to catch up on reading every law made by the Republicans during that 12 years then I do not mind waiting, it's only billions upon billions of papers. But hey you seem pretty sure that the Republicans in Congress during those years were a tyrannical rule, full of mistakes, so I am so certain that you have read each document!

[Heald]

It doesn't matter if a injustice has been done or not. They protest when a Illigal Immigrant is sent home too, even though they break the law. You may not have far left racist organizations in England like LULAC or the NAACP. But here they tend to not care about innocent or guilty, they just stick up for the person that is their race.

I was being facetious.

You are absolutely right. People that have been implicated in Fishing Expeditions must have done a injustice. I guess that means Bill Clinton is guilty of having sex in a political building, as well as taking campeign donations from China, both of which are completely illigal. But lets not stop there, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security advisor hid documents from the 9/11 comission. Lets all throw them in jail! Becuase people taken infront of Partisan comittiees are automatically guilty right? Only "loyal and small-minded" believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Why do you insist in thinking I'm defending the Democrats? I just have the knowledge that letting your personal and political allegiances affect the way you run a very sensitive national post, a post that demands the strictness of political independence, as in the case of Gonzales' firings of the Prosecutors, is a slightly more serious allegation than getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. So what if what Gonzales did wasn't strictly illegal, it was still an abuse of an office he was trusted to run and clearly he wasn't fit to run it if he couldn't do his job properly.

Yeah becuase Illigal Immigrants do so much for our economy, costing us over 100 Billion dollars a year, not paying taxes, and in the end costing us more money than putting it in. It is just so much to whine about, I mean our economy and everything. How stupid of the Republicans, why whine about small things about the economy and the possible security problem with our borders. We should focus on much bigger things like naming post offices and fishing investigations!

I wasn't saying that illegal immigrants are a positive thing. Considering the UK has possibly an even worse immigration problem than the US (proportionately), you won't see me defending them. What I was in fact referring to was that the people who defend Latin Americans, such as LULAC, differ greatly from the people who defend Alberto Gonzales, since the only people defending him are the most determined of right-wingers, and it tends to be the case that right-wingers constantly bitch about Mexicans taking all their jerbs.

Also speaking of active LULAC Members, several notable supporters of LULAC are: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Democrat Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, and Nancy Pelosi. But hey there is no partisan reason for why LULAC isn't protesting right?

Who says LULAC has to be non-partisan? They're a pressure group, they can support whatever party they damned well please.

Well seeing how we were talking about Republican Control over CONGRESS. Then they were in control from 1994 to 2006. Now I know there are different systems to measure things in England. But on this side of the pond, that is 12 years. Not 6 years, not 8 years, but 12 years. And hey I am glad you have taken such a good interest in politics over those twelve years. Can you tell me the web site to view all congressional documents? Here I will give you a free answer on that one, it's http://thomas.loc.gov/ But I bet you already knew that.

I was in fact referring to both Congress and the White House being controlled by the Republicans.

[Roy Karrde]

Why do you insist in thinking I'm defending the Democrats?

Never asked you to, but seeing how those are acts that they comitted, many of which were aquitted for. Which is usually what happens in these investigations.

I just have the knowledge that letting your personal and political allegiances affect the way you run a very sensitive national post, a post that demands the strictness of political independence, as in the case of Gonzales' firings of the Prosecutors, is a slightly more serious allegation than getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. So what if what Gonzales did wasn't strictly illegal, it was still an abuse of an office he was trusted to run and clearly he wasn't fit to run it if he couldn't do his job properly.

So now is his innocent or guilty? I keep getting confused in your posts. And you are right it is more serious, but the thing is that those investigations do not care about the crime. What they do is get you up on the stand, they ask you alot of questions, and then they call you back a month later and ask you the same questions. If you're answers differ, or if you had forgotten, and they can prove it against you. Then you go to trial. That is the real goal of it.

As for Gonzales, unless you have been in the congressional room you have no idea what has truely gone down. These prosecutors are supposed to be unbiased, neither liberal or conservative. If they were being biased, which it seemed they were as they were going directly after Republican members of Congress while by passing Democrat Scandles, then Gonzales had the right to pull them and allow Bush to put in attorneys that will go after both Republican and Democrats.

I wasn't saying that illegal immigrants are a positive thing. Considering the UK has possibly an even worse immigration problem than the US (proportionately), you won't see me defending them.

Nah you just said they whined about it, whining about trying to fix the problem and all that.

What I was in fact referring to was that the people who defend Latin Americans, such as LULAC, differ greatly from the people who defend Alberto Gonzales, since the only people defending him are the most determined of right-wingers, and it tends to be the case that right-wingers constantly bitch about Mexicans taking all their jerbs.

Yeah that is exactly what right wingers bitch about, not the economy or anything else. Also I take it Bush is a determined right winger? Well he can't be I mean he has defended Latin Americans and all that. What about John Mc Cain?

Who says LULAC has to be non-partisan? They're a pressure group, they can support whatever party they damned well please.

Well if they want to be equal then they should defend pretty much the highest ranking Latino American in the US. But hey it's better to support the people that are on the left side of the isle than to actually support all Latinos like they have constantly claimed they will do.

I was in fact referring to both Congress and the White House being controlled by the Republicans.

Ahh so that is why you said:

I'm not going to defend the Democrats, since frankly they're nearly as bad as the Republicans. What I will say though is that you have named 3 seemingly terrible things that the Democrats have done here, yet I could name thousands of piss-poor and terrible things the Republicans did in their eight years of tyrannical rule.

Becuase we were talking about the Democrats having control of the Congress and the White House right now. Especially when it came to the three major acts that they have comitted over the last three months where Democrats were in power of Congress. No where did you mention the White House, it was no where near the post either. We were talking about how the Republicans acted during Congressional Rule, and how the Democrats acted during Congressional Rule.

[Heald]

So now is his innocent or guilty? I keep getting confused in your posts. And you are right it is more serious, but the thing is that those investigations do not care about the crime. What they do is get you up on the stand, they ask you alot of questions, and then they call you back a month later and ask you the same questions. If you're answers differ, or if you had forgotten, and they can prove it against you. Then you go to trial. That is the real goal of it.

From what I have read and been told, Gonzales didn't do anything strictly illegal, so did he commit a crime? No. He is not a criminal. What he was accused of doing, and what he is guilty of doing, is abusing his position in order to put Bush's allies in top jobs and get rid of supposed Democrat-supporters.

As for Gonzales, unless you have been in the congressional room you have no idea what has truely gone down. These prosecutors are supposed to be unbiased, neither liberal or conservative. If they were being biased, which it seemed they were as they were going directly after Republican members of Congress while by passing Democrat Scandles, then Gonzales had the right to pull them and allow Bush to put in attorneys that will go after both Republican and Democrats.

What the reports were is that these prosecutors ruled unfavourably towards Republicans. Of course Republicans are going to say they are pinko commie scum for not ruling in their favour, and most people agree the the people that replaced the fired Prosecutors were "loyal Bushies".

Of course, Bush and his cronies have no problem getting rid of people who don't rule in their favour and setting up lapdogs in top jobs, they're been doing it since 2000, such as when Bush got Herbert fired from the top job in the FERC and installed his lapdog Pat Wood to allow Bush's buddies in Enron to do whatever the hell they wanted.

Becuase we were talking about the Democrats having control of the Congress and the White House right now. Especially when it came to the three major acts that they have comitted over the last three months where Democrats were in power of Congress. No where did you mention the White House, it was no where near the post either. We were talking about how the Republicans acted during Congressional Rule, and how the Democrats acted during Congressional Rule.

If you're going to go after me for the same point over and over again, a point that I have already retracted no less, at least get what I meant right. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for 6 years, effectively allowing them to pass whatever laws they wanted since the Democrats didn't stand a chance. Now that the power is divided between Congress and , the Republicans can't fast-track bills through like they used to be able too. If there was a Democrat president, the Republican Congress wouldn't have gotten away with the shit it did in the first six years of Bush.

[Roy Karrde]

From what I have read and been told, Gonzales didn't do anything strictly illegal, so did he commit a crime? No. He is not a criminal. What he was accused of doing, and what he is guilty of doing, is abusing his position in order to put Bush's allies in top jobs and get rid of supposed Democrat-supporters.

Supposed Democrat Supporters, now correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say that these prosecutors are supposed to be

"non-partisan and independent in every aspect from political parties"

If they were Democrat Supporters then how is that non partisan and independent of every aspect from political parties?

So now we are going back to how he abused the office, he fired attornies, who even by your own admission, were not doing what they were supposed to be doing by being partisan.

What the reports were is that these prosecutors ruled unfavourably towards Republicans. Of course Republicans are going to say they are pinko commie scum for not ruling in their favour, and most people agree the the people that replaced the fired Prosecutors were "loyal Bushies".

Pinko Commie Scum, is that a direct quote from the Republicans? Now what if I were to say that not only did these people act favorably toward Democrats, but half of them were laxed on Voter Fraud, do they deserve to be fired by not doing their job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051301106.html

As for those replaced, so far all I can find is interm attornies, and no signs of attornies that have actually replaced them and gone through Congress. So can you show me these Prosecutors names that are "loyal Bushies" and how they got through Congressional approval?

Of course, Bush and his cronies have no problem getting rid of people who don't rule in their favour and setting up lapdogs in top jobs, they're been doing it since 2000, such as when Bush got Herbert fired from the top job in the FERC and installed his lapdog Pat Wood to allow Bush's buddies in Enron to do whatever the hell they wanted.

Oh yes becuase Presidents keep all of the previous Presidents appointments. And now Bush was buddies with Enron? What next? Bush caused the WTC attacks? And if Pat Wood allowed Enron to do what ever they wanted then he didn't do that good of a job seeing how just two years into Bush's term Enron went under.

If you're going to go after me for the same point over and over again, a point that I have already retracted no less, at least get what I meant right. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for 6 years, effectively allowing them to pass whatever laws they wanted since the Democrats didn't stand a chance. Now that the power is divided between Congress and , the Republicans can't fast-track bills through like they used to be able too. If there was a Democrat president, the Republican Congress wouldn't have gotten away with the shit it did in the first six years of Bush.

Ahh I see, that makes so much sense, seeing how you never mentioned Bush in the original one, and we were talking about things the Republican Congress has done versus how much the Democrat Congress has done. But anyway even with the six years, have you read every piece of paper? Every bill? Every treaty? I mean you are making a unbiased determination on these six years, so you must have right? I mean there have been so many horrible things they did even in their first term since Bush was elected!

Like the Help America Vote Act which got rid of punch card voting systems and set up a Election Assistance Commission. Yeah it is real evil of them for trying to fix the election system and keep another 2000 mishap happening again.

How about the Sudan Peace Act, which authorized money to try and help stop the Genocide in Sudan and condemed the Genocide.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which refined election rules and both sides of the isle agreed to.

The Trade Act of 2002 which allowed Congress to have greater and faster power to amend and work on trade deals with other countries, so that trade agreements were streamlined.

Oh yes, very very evil, very very damning isn't it? Those nasty evil Republicans and their peace acts and their Election reform acts. Boooo

[Heald]

Supposed Democrat Supporters, now correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say that these prosecutors are supposed to be

"non-partisan and independent in every aspect from political parties"

If they were Democrat Supporters then how is that non partisan and independent of every aspect from political parties?

So now we are going back to how he abused the office, he fired attornies, who even by your own admission, were not doing what they were supposed to be doing by being partisan.

I only put in supposed, because the only people who called them Democrat supporters were the same Republicans that complained about them after they couldn't get their own way.

As for those replaced, so far all I can find is interm attornies, and no signs of attornies that have actually replaced them and gone through Congress. So can you show me these Prosecutors names that are "loyal Bushies" and how they got through Congressional approval?

I admit that I have misread something and misled you, for which I apologise. The 'loyal Bushies' is a quote from Gonzales' chief-of-staff, Kyle Sampson, who coordinated the firings of the Prosecutors due to them pissing off several Republicans with the intention of installing loyal Bushies, but he resigned before completeing his assignment. Still, the intention was to remove prosecutors that were not loyal to Bush and the Republican party and install those that are.

Oh yes becuase Presidents keep all of the previous Presidents appointments. And now Bush was buddies with Enron? What next? Bush caused the WTC attacks? And if Pat Wood allowed Enron to do what ever they wanted then he didn't do that good of a job seeing how just two years into Bush's term Enron went under.

It has been proven time and time again that Bush and many members of his cabinet had personal links and relationships with the top members of Enron, many of which gave funding to Bush in exchange for letting Enron run its own course.

About the Presidential appointments, the FERC is independent from the DoE and the White House entirely and so Herbert was not a presidential appointment anyway. Bush got him fired and replaced because he controlled the DoE, which has the power to remove and replace the heads of independent commissions.

The reason Enron went under had nothing to do with the fact that they were allowed a free run of the energy market, but because they committed fraud on a gargantuan scale. Not even Pat Wood could protect it when they got busted for that.

[Roy Karrde]

I only put in supposed, because the only people who called them Democrat supporters were the same Republicans that complained about them after they couldn't get their own way.

Well how about we call them something than Democrat Supporters? I mean if we are going to have a debate how about we final a wording we can both agree on. How about "Prosecutors that were laxed on Voter Frad". We can call them PTWLVF. Although that doesnt slip off the tongue so easily, how about "Prosecutors that were not doing their job". We could call them PTWDTJ.

I admit that I have misread something and misled you, for which I apologise. The 'loyal Bushies' is a quote from Gonzales' chief-of-staff, Kyle Sampson, who coordinated the firings of the Prosecutors due to them pissing off several Republicans with the intention of installing loyal Bushies, but he resigned before completeing his assignment. Still, the intention was to remove prosecutors that were not loyal to Bush and the Republican party and install those that are.

Ahh I see that put a new spin on it, I mean Kyle Sampson not Bush or Gonzales has the final say on what to do with these Prosecutors, and approved the fireings. And these poor Prosecutors, I mean they were only NOT doing their job.

Anyway I think we have really dwelled down to a very small tit for tat debate about a non subject. I mean neither of us really know why they were fired. But we can both agree that no crime was comitted here, and that Bush has used a power that has been used to fire thousands upon thousands of Prosecutors for how ever many Presidents.

[Bulbasaur4]

See? This is a perfect example of why I don't argue with Roy. Why? Because no matter what you say... he's gonna back up Bush, back up Republicans and never admit to any contradiction of his own opinion being true.

In light of that fact... I'd like to say one thing. Until you STALK President Bush and actually HEAR him in the private of his own office... come UP with these ideas that he's "inforced" or "come up with" and yadaya... then DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT say that "He has come up with this" or "He has done that." Because I would bet A LOT of money that "he" really doesn't come up with those things... but his advisors, his advisor's advisors and such, come up with it, TELL him to address it and do it, and he does it. Like a monkey doing tricks!
I mean... do you LISTEN to him when he's off script? And don't say yes. Because you don't know when he's off script anyways.

Likewise, I can't prove he doesn't. But then I point out his lack of talking ability. And well... him... and well... *giggle*

Don't bother to retort back. I don't want a retort. Go back to arguing your life away with Dru, Heald and Blade. *gives those three cookies* I can't believe you guys don't explode in debates like this.

[Heald]

Don't bother to retort back. I don't want a retort. Go back to arguing your life away with Dru, Heald and Blade. *gives those three cookies* I can't believe you guys don't explode in debates like this.

It makes me yearn for the good old days of The Rusted One.