Attorney General Gonzales to Resign

[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.