Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

107 | 108 | 109

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

9 | 10 | 11

Next

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 30, 2007 10:34 AM

chikinhammr said:
Let me prelude this before I get bombarded with hateful replies. I hate George W.Bush, but I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. The President of the United States has the right and privilege to fire Federal Prosecutors for any reason he or she wishes. These Prosecutors are hired by Presidents based on their politics, and their politics are a perfectly legitimate reason to terminate them. There is nothing sinister about this stupid story. Bill Clinton, a liberal favorite, fired 93 Federal Prosecutors in his first six months in office and nobody said jack shit about it. If Democrats want to bitch about this now, they need to expect scrutiny when it's their turn in the White House again. This story is just so lame. If Bush had any balls, he really would have said "fuck off" instead of cowering like the Pussy he is. This article is totally flawed.



Bush, Clinton, Reagan.. they have all failed to learn the same basic lesson. It ain't the act, it's the cover-up.

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

MAR 30, 2007 11:53 AM

oyaji said:

Subrosa said:

chikinhammr said:
This article is totally flawed.



No, your argument is flawed. Every one of your points have been addressed and debunked at length already in the thread. Happy reading, then get back to us.



Exactly.

Why don't you people READ THE THREAD, at least a little of it, before you go off half-cocked? WHY!?



A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 30, 2007 11:56 AM

Adroitbeing said:
A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?


Nobody complained when Bill Clinton fired all ninety-three US prosectors. The President is totally in the right on this one. This is just a Democrat Party witch-hunt.

meatpieboy

meatpieboy

Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004

MAR 30, 2007 12:05 PM

Zarth said:

Adroitbeing said:
A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?


Nobody complained when Bill Clinton fired all ninety-three US prosectors. The President is totally in the right on this one. This is just a Democrat Party witch-hunt.



TROLL ALERT!!!

STAND DOWN!!!! LOWER YOUR WEAPONS MEN!

nothing to see here, move along now...

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAR 30, 2007 01:30 PM

oyaji said: No it can't. Suppose president X has a college buddy who smuggles cocaine into New Mexico. President X calls up the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico and says: "don't prosecute my friend for cocaine trafficking." U.S. Attorney for New Mexico says "I'm sorry president X, but I must apply the law to your college buddy." President X fires U.S. Attorney from New Mexico.

Do you think that's okay?

Do you understand that president X has committed a FUCKING CRIME by pressuring and firing U.S. Attorney for New Mexico.

You're wrong. The president and his agents are not above the law.

The point I was trying to make was that its standard procedure that
No, it's not. It is not standard procedure for a president to mass fire U.S. Attorneys he has appointed while in "the middle" of his term. Find me one other example where this has occurred.



I thought that this should be highlighted.

It's just plain wrong on the spirit and letter of the law to say that the president can fire U.S. Attorneys for what ever reason he wants.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 30, 2007 01:39 PM

wildswan said:

oyaji said: No it can't. Suppose president X has a college buddy who smuggles cocaine into New Mexico. President X calls up the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico and says: "don't prosecute my friend for cocaine trafficking." U.S. Attorney for New Mexico says "I'm sorry president X, but I must apply the law to your college buddy." President X fires U.S. Attorney from New Mexico.

Do you think that's okay?

Do you understand that president X has committed a FUCKING CRIME by pressuring and firing U.S. Attorney for New Mexico.

You're wrong. The president and his agents are not above the law.

The point I was trying to make was that its standard procedure that
No, it's not. It is not standard procedure for a president to mass fire U.S. Attorneys he has appointed while in "the middle" of his term. Find me one other example where this has occurred.



I thought that this should be highlighted.

It's just plain wrong on the spirit and letter of the law to say that the president can fire U.S. Attorneys for what ever reason he wants.



Which is why Gonzalez has been trying to say that the firings were performance based. Even they know that they can't fire prosecutors "at will."

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAR 30, 2007 01:44 PM

^^^ I'm glad that they were stupid enough to do so. A pissed-off attorney is an amazing thing to behold.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 30, 2007 03:51 PM

chikinhammr said:
Let me prelude this before I get bombarded with hateful replies.


Don't bother. Pathetic.

Pa-the-tic.

d20

d20

San Francisco, CA
September 2003

MAR 30, 2007 04:09 PM

JohnClement said:
...would you please get me a job when I matriculate?



i'm sure there are fetish websites that cover that. you could work for one of them?

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

MAR 31, 2007 11:36 AM

Zarth said:

Adroitbeing said:
A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?


Nobody complained when Bill Clinton fired all ninety-three US prosectors. The President is totally in the right on this one. This is just a Democrat Party witch-hunt.



Ah, you sir are polishing the satire again!

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 31, 2007 12:45 PM

Busted!

I don't think the degree of wilfulness in that reactionary ignorance should be underestimated, though.

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

MAR 31, 2007 09:19 PM

Zarth said:
Busted!

I don't think the degree of wilfulness in that reactionary ignorance should be underestimated, though.



It would be foolish to underestimate you my friend!

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 31, 2007 09:39 PM

Adroitbeing said:

Zarth said:
Busted!

I don't think the degree of wilfulness in that reactionary ignorance should be underestimated, though.


It would be foolish to underestimate you my friend!


I think that works out to be an insult.

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

APR 01, 2007 01:51 AM

bald_eagle said:

Zarth said:

Adroitbeing said:

Zarth said:
Busted!

I don't think the degree of wilfulness in that reactionary ignorance should be underestimated, though.


It would be foolish to underestimate you my friend!


I think that works out to be an insult.



Nah. I think it was a compliment.



I think it was a come-on.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

APR 01, 2007 02:21 AM

DrStinkypants said:

bald_eagle said:

Zarth said:

Adroitbeing said:

Zarth said:
Busted!

I don't think the degree of wilfulness in that reactionary ignorance should be underestimated, though.


It would be foolish to underestimate you my friend!


I think that works out to be an insult.



Nah. I think it was a compliment.



I think it was a come-on.


Sure got me all hot and bothered.

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

APR 01, 2007 05:00 AM

JohnClement said:
Even though I want to do entertainment law, would you please get me a job when I matriculate?



You'd get fired as a U.S. Attorney if they found out you've matriculated with co-eds.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
But only if you're a shameless extrovert with a sister who's a practicing thespian in Greenwich Village.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

9 | 10 | 11

Next