DEVELOPING STORY: The Coming Constitutional Showdown on Capitol Hill

[Merlin99]

Just my opinion but I think what's got everyones attention was not so much any laws were broken, but dems wanted to question if it was politically motivated. GW stirred the pot by telling them to pizz up a rope. Dems then said we will force the issue. GW then in his normal ham fisted fashion then decided to completely obfuscate the original problem with his "in private and not under oath" speech. Even if everything is above board this made it look like something shady is going on which gave the dems a hook to hang the witch hunt on. Personally, I don't think GW could have done anything more to stir sentiments against him more than this.

 

[Kerad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html


Gotta feel better now that serious people of real conscience are in charge, huh?

Let the witch hunt continue.

Ummm....okay.

I'm pretty sure Dubya swapped most, if not all of them as well. The idea is, once you've put "your" appointees in place, you let them do their jobs independent of party politics.

That's the difference. Whether or not you elect to acknowledge this difference is your prerogative, of course.

 

[Larry Gude]

My point is...

Is there any reason to suspect that politics NEVER plays a role in these appointments? I'm noticing there seems to be a serious conflict of interest here, no matter whose side you're on.

...and I posted this earlier; I see it as 100% political. They are political appointees. They all serve at the pleasure of the President be it Reagan, Bush I or II or Clinton.

What we have here is a case of rank hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats.

Further, the larger story is a couple of the people let go were not pursuing the great untold political story of our age; voter fraud, to the satisfaction of the administration. This is why all the smoke. This is what they don't want anyone to focus on, voter fraud. It is key to Democratic power.

 

[Larry Gude]

I can lead...

Ummm....okay.

I'm pretty sure Dubya swapped most, if not all of them as well. The idea is, once you've put "your" appointees in place, you let them do their jobs independent of party politics.

That's the difference. Whether or not you elect to acknowledge this difference is your prerogative, of course.

...you to the obvious; you don't have to acknowledge it.

Again; do you suppose that when Clinton fired everyone at once that they, oddly enough, were not involved in any work, doing their jobs, as you put it?

Reagan oversaw a transition where each one was replaced at the appropriate time so as to not raise concerns, as did W when he took office. That's not what Clinton did and you don't seem to care. SO, now, these 8 are a HUGE deal. Stop the government. Stop everything.

I think you're being hypocritical.

 

[Larry Gude]

No he did not...

Just my opinion but I think what's got everyones attention was not so much any laws were broken, but dems wanted to question if it was politically motivated. GW stirred the pot by telling them to pizz up a rope. Dems then said we will force the issue. GW then in his normal ham fisted fashion then decided to completely obfuscate the original problem with his "in private and not under oath" speech. Even if everything is above board this made it look like something shady is going on which gave the dems a hook to hang the witch hunt on. Personally, I don't think GW could have done anything more to stir sentiments against him more than this.

...but had he done that at the get go, it would have been better. Gonzalez did this;

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201804.html

 

[Kerad]

...you to the obvious; you don't have to acknowledge it.

Again; do you suppose that when Clinton fired everyone at once that they, oddly enough, were not involved in any work, doing their jobs, as you put it?

Reagan oversaw a transition where each one was replaced at the appropriate time so as to not raise concerns, as did W when he took office. That's not what Clinton did and you don't seem to care. SO, now, these 8 are a HUGE deal. Stop the government. Stop everything.

I think you're being hypocritical.

Think what you want. Clinton didn't fire attorneys that he personally appointed because they were prosecuting too many Democrats and not enough Republicans. It doesn't matter who's in the White House...firing attorneys because they're investigating members of your party is total B.S., and should be illegal.

The fact that this administration has done it comes as no surprise to me in the least, and only reinforces my disgust for it. This administration has no credibility whatsoever, and is deserving of even less. If President Bush came on television right now and said "Good Morning", I'd have to check the clock to make sure he's not lying, and then enthusiastically applaud the fact the he wasn't.

Believe it or not, I'd actually love it if Bush would prove me wrong, and do something I could be proud of. It hasn't happened since we first went to Afghanistan, and I don't expect it'll ever happen again.


Anyways...
I can only repeat myself so many times before I get bored. I think I've sufficiently discussed my opinions on this matter. We'll all see how this plays out, and decide for ourselves if we're okay with what happened.

 

[ylexot]

I can only repeat myself so many times before I get bored.

I got bored with your posts long ago :rimshot:

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Think what you want. Clinton didn't fire attorneys that he personally appointed because they were prosecuting too many Democrats and not enough Republicans. It doesn't matter who's in the White House...firing attorneys because they're investigating members of your party is total B.S., and should be illegal.

It should be, I agree. But, it's not.

 

[Pete]

Think what you want. Clinton didn't fire attorneys that he personally appointed because they were prosecuting too many Democrats and not enough Republicans. It doesn't matter who's in the White House...firing attorneys because they're investigating members of your party is total B.S., and should be illegal.

Why do you, a reasonable intelligent person, hitch your wagon to this bullchit?

This is what I detest about partisan hacks. Even I have no problem saying that Bush is a moron on certain issues. Privitizing social Security Immigration and the list goes on. However, I realize he is not the epitome of all evil. I never thought Clinton was the epitome of all evil. But when you latch onto bugus issues like this one and allow your credibility to pour out on the floor it is just plain sad.

 

[ylexot]

Privitizing social Security

You're against privatizing SS? I'm all for it. Better yet, let me opt-out of SS completely. I'll sign something saying that I'm on my own when I retire (which I probably will be anyway ).

 

[Pete]

You're against privatizing SS? I'm all for it. Better yet, let me opt-out of SS completely. I'll sign something saying that I'm on my own when I retire (which I probably will be anyway ).

Totally against it for 2 reasons.

1. Most Americans are goobers and will opt out with the plan to start saving "tomorrow". "Tomorrow" will never come, they will be dirt poor and need help and because we are America and will not allow people to starve on the street we will end up paying them SS by another name anyway except they will have never paid in.

2. Bad crap happens to unsuspecting people. when it does and they end up old and poor see #1 above.

 

[SamSpade]

Totally against it for 2 reasons.

1. Most Americans are goobers and will opt out with the plan to start saving "tomorrow". "Tomorrow" will never come, they will be dirt poor and need help and because we are America and will not allow people to starve on the street we will end up paying them SS by another name anyway except they will have never paid in.

2. Bad crap happens to unsuspecting people. when it does and they end up old and poor see #1 above.

I think it ought to be at least like the Thrift Savings Plan, except with the same deductions. You're right, most Americans ARE goobers when it comes to retirement - you can repeat the refrain "SS is supposed to SUPPLEMENT your retirement" but they still won't listen.

To work, I think at least a couple things have to happen

1. SS is entirely out of the federal budget. I'm serious. The reason why it's pay as you go now is because they spend the extra so much now, they depend on it. I'm tired of this stupid unified budget crap. Why set up a completely separate tax for an entity, and then commingle the funds when it suits you?

2. Personal accounts which are invested. You DO have a box with your name on it. Making out IOU's, paying off at a LOW rate of return after decades - it's a waste. When any other form of reasonable investment would pay off better than SS, it's done atrociously.

3. Mandatory minimums - to avoid the goober factor. Nitwits who don't pay in today, but will raise hell later when the winter comes.

4. Partial personal investment capability. Right now, the TSP has funds you can freely manipulate to maximize your return. Or not.

It's insane to have a retirement "plan" that is pay as you go. It's crazy to send all that money to Washington and it never earns a dime. The minimally intelligent thing to do would be to buy bonds with it, or deposit it so it could collect interest. Right now it does nothing except get spent - with a little IOU a la "Dumb and Dumber" with a promise to pay it back.

 

[Pete]

I think it ought to be at least like the Thrift Savings Plan, except with the same deductions. You're right, most Americans ARE goobers when it comes to retirement - you can repeat the refrain "SS is supposed to SUPPLEMENT your retirement" but they still won't listen.

To work, I think at least a couple things have to happen

1. SS is entirely out of the federal budget. I'm serious. The reason why it's pay as you go now is because they spend the extra so much now, they depend on it. I'm tired of this stupid unified budget crap. Why set up a completely separate tax for an entity, and then commingle the funds when it suits you?

2. Personal accounts which are invested. You DO have a box with your name on it. Making out IOU's, paying off at a LOW rate of return after decades - it's a waste. When any other form of reasonable investment would pay off better than SS, it's done atrociously.

3. Mandatory minimums - to avoid the goober factor. Nitwits who don't pay in today, but will raise hell later when the winter comes.

4. Partial personal investment capability. Right now, the TSP has funds you can freely manipulate to maximize your return. Or not.

It's insane to have a retirement "plan" that is pay as you go. It's crazy to send all that money to Washington and it never earns a dime. The minimally intelligent thing to do would be to buy bonds with it, or deposit it so it could collect interest. Right now it does nothing except get spent - with a little IOU a la "Dumb and Dumber" with a promise to pay it back.

It would have to be a fool proof/gooober proof scheme for my to support it.

The point in this thread is I am NOT a Koolaide drinker who blindly applauds Bush, like these antagonistic hacks who vilify every step he takes like forestal and as it appears kerad.

 

[SamSpade]

It would have to be a fool proof/gooober proof scheme for my to support it.

The point in this thread is I am NOT a Koolaide drinker who blindly applauds Bush, like these antagonistic hacks who vilify every step he takes like forestal and as it appears kerad.

I wish they'd eliminate it altogether. But it won't happen for several reasons - and one is, it's still a cash cow. For the time being, it's free "extra" money. It's insane to tax me on something I could manage better in my sleep. But you're right in that, if they eliminate it, we'll still end up supporting the goobers who did nothing.

And I was for privatization long before Bush even hinted at it in running for President. I've talked about it IN HERE long before that. I don't "agree with Bush" on the matter. He partly agrees with me.

It's idiotic to me to take my money from me ostensibly for the purpose of providing me with a pension - but not investing a single dime of it! It's a Ponzi scheme.

 

[ylexot]

The point in this thread is I am NOT a Koolaide drinker who blindly applauds Bush, like these antagonistic hacks who vilify every step he takes like forestal and as it appears kerad.

Yeah, I'm sorry that I got us off-track.

 

[Idiot]

This is what they don't want anyone to focus on, voter fraud. It is key to Democratic power.

:

 

[Larry Gude]

What a beautiful world...

s[/B] administration has done it comes as no surprise to me in the least, and only reinforces my disgust for it.

...you just saved the tax payers untold millions for the trial and the sentencing, let alone the inconvenience of actually having any evidence or even an allegation.

Well done.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'll give this one...

:

...shot; What do you think of the 1960 presidential election and the results in Chicago?

What do you think of the late poll closings in St. Louis in 2000?

What do you think of inner city districts having 80 and 90% voting rates?

What do you think of several districts in Florida going from 100,000 or so votes for Clinton in 1996 to upwards of doubling 4 years later?

Are you OK with voter fraud as long as Democrats benefit?

 

[Larry Gude]

It always was...

I wish they'd eliminate it altogether. But it won't happen for several reasons - and one is, it's still a cash cow. For the time being, it's free "extra" money. It's insane to tax me on something I could manage better in my sleep. But you're right in that, if they eliminate it, we'll still end up supporting the goobers who did nothing.

And I was for privatization long before Bush even hinted at it in running for President. I've talked about it IN HERE long before that. I don't "agree with Bush" on the matter. He partly agrees with me.

It's idiotic to me to take my money from me ostensibly for the purpose of providing me with a pension - but not investing a single dime of it! It's a Ponzi scheme.

...a 'scheme' and it never was an investment program; It is Old Age Supplemetnal and Disability Insurance; OASDI

I'll we ever pay are premiums.

 

[Idiot]

...shot; What do you think of the 1960 presidential election and the results in Chicago?

What do you think of the late poll closings in St. Louis in 2000?

What do you think of inner city districts having 80 and 90% voting rates?

What do you think of several districts in Florida going from 100,000 or so votes for Clinton in 1996 to upwards of doubling 4 years later?

Are you OK with voter fraud as long as Democrats benefit?

Do you really want me to list the voter anomalies in FLA 2000 and Ohio 2004?