2 Bush aides to face contempt citations »
Posted By Xaos 1 year, 2 months ago in NewsHeading toward a separation-of-powers showdown, House Democrats prepared contempt of Congress citations against two White House aides who have refused to comply with subpoenas for information on the abrupt firings of federal prosecutors.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
Xaos
Guess by now a few people are wondering who the heck I am. Lets see, raised in the country, a Christian, and an engineer and ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 438
-
0%
Teech1 year, 2 months ago
How dare those treasonous, cut'n run, surrender monkey Democraps defy King George! Subpoena your weenie! His minions answer only to him, not the Democrap Congress or the lacky citizens of America. Who's in charge of this country anyway!
Reply-
0%
mamasan1 year, 2 months ago
um we are actually.
I have tried to tell the Conservatives on here countless times that Bush actually is our servant.
they get really mad at that....
President Bush serves at the pleasure of the American people.
I have not forgotten that but he seems to have.
Reply-
0%
jai611 year, 2 months ago
Repulicans are like watching a Comedy Special?
No matter how much they do wrong, they fight you tooth and nail they they did nothing wrong. They always look you in the face and claim innocense and deflect to Democrats.
I know one thing, No matter how much they trash Dems, Repubs do nothing for the people of this country. Oh, excuse me, well the rich get help..Also if your a Republican big business owner you can pretty much get consessions.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 2 months ago
Ok...I'm a reasonable person. If the President doesn't want to let his people talk openly about things, then we should take him up on his offer of letting Meirs et al speak to the Judiciary Committee in private. No notes, no tape, no oath (cowards).
And when it's all over, then Congress can tell us what they remember (assuming their memories aren't as bad as Libby's, Gonzales', and others) about the conversations. I think that's fair.
Of course, that won't happen. Shrub will probably add a condition that Congress has to keep its mouth shut. And to boot, Shrub will probably have the "private" meeting wiretapped, just to make sure the committee doesn't say a thing, because if they do, then Shrub will have evidence that they lied about talking, and that would bring up a whole new investigation as to why Congress lied about spilling the beans to get to the truth about Shrub hiding the truth.
Ah...politicians...don't you just love 'em?
Reply-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 2 months ago
Actually, "Shrub" was used as a name for him for years by a Texas reporter who covered Bush from his very beginnings in state politics. I just use it now because I like to.
It's probably inaccurate, but I prefer to think of a bush as mature, while a shrub isn't.
No doubt "bush league" is more appropriate...
Reply-
0%
scott42611 year, 2 months ago
Molly Ivans (may she rest in peace) gave Bush the name "Shrub" in one of her columns when George W. Bush was running against Ann Richards in Texas. The name has stuck.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 2 months ago
I thought if there is one thing you people
believe it's not to speak ill of the dead
Oh well, there goes another alleged conservative
principle out the window.
Yeah, Molly is guilty
of making people laugh.
How dare she combine intellect
with humor.
You probably think Jon Stewart
is the anti-Christ.
Too bad, because if you could
understand him you'd appreciate his humor.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
The congress is claiming that they have the authority to compel a member of the executive branch to provide them with confidential information germane only to the executive branch decision making process. They are now going to ask the Judiciary to determine, with the full knowledge that no law has been broken, if congress has the power to take control of the executive branch decision making process through their implied oversight responsibilities? Does Congress have power granted under the Constitution to compel the Executive Branch to answer to them in matters of decision making regarding hiring and firing of political appointees? On the flip side does the Executive have the Power to compel a member of congress to tell them under oath how they came to the decision to hire or fire a staff member? Does the Judiciary have the power to compel either to comply with unconstitutional claims of power? What of the Attorney-Client confidentiality as well? Meyers=Attorney-Admin=Client.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Please can someone point out wherein the Constitution of The United States Of America grants Congress the Power to oversee how the President hires and fires Executive Branch appointees?
here is a link if you are unable to find and read the Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit...
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
(b) Application-
(1) IN GENERAL- Any person serving as a United States attorney on the day before the date of enactment of this Act who was appointed under section 546 of title 28, United States Code, may serve until the earlier of--
(A) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of that title; or
(B) 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) EXPIRED APPOINTMENTS- If an appointment expires under paragraph (1), the district court for that district may appoint a United States attorney for that district under section 546(d) of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Where and when did they lie about firing people? Please give a specific example. And also please show me where the official charges of such are being presented by the legislative branch.
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
JohnQPublic is unable to understand Article 1. of the constitution of The United States therefore gives me a neg. vote. Now that is what I call intellectual integrity Mr.JohnQPublic. The question is this. Please can someone point out wherein the Constitution of The United States Of America grants Congress the Power to oversee how the President hires and fires Executive Branch appointees? JohnQ here is a link for you http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
"Senator Feinstein's U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorneys to fill vacancies for up to 120 days before a confirmation hearing is required. Therefore proof that there was nothing illegal done here. It was the law and Feinstein herself voted for the passage of the current Patriot act. And so did Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and most others involved in this fiasco and wasting of the American taxpayers money.
From Article 1 Section 7. of the United States Constitution
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
It was not illegal as the law allowed the AG to appoint Attorneys to fill the vacancies for up to 120 days. The Attorney's that resigned or fired however you want to state it had concluded their four years of service.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
You are correct. THEY WROTE THE LAW,DEBATED THE LAW, PASSED THE LAW, AND HAVE NOW REPEALED THE LAW. "Senator Feinstein's U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorneys to fill vacancies for up to 120 days before a confirmation hearing is required. NO LAW WAS BROKEN!
Congress repealed the law. Does that now mean to you that a law was broken because it is no longer the law? That my friend is unconstitutional. From Article 1 Section 7. of the United States Constitution
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
You may want to look into the separation of powers. Attorney Client Privilege,Executive Privilege throughout the History of the United States. The actions these Democrat(ic)s are taking is Unprecedented in the History of the United States.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
"Senator Feinstein's U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorneys to fill vacancies for up to 120 days before a confirmation hearing is required.
Reply -
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Read this and get back to us in couple of days
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc....
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ryan6011 year, 2 months ago
"Please can someone point out wherein the Constitution of The United States Of America grants Congress the Power to oversee how the President hires and fires Executive Branch appointees?"
Congress has the inherent power to impeach the President.
Well, you might ask, for what reason can Congress impeach the President? I think it's largely understood that abuse of power is one of those reasons, even if it's not specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution. Breaking the law is certainly another reason even though, again, its not specifically mentioned in the text (and before you say it, yes there were laws broken; 18USC1505 and 1512).
So you have to be careful about saying that the government can't do anything not specifically mentioned in the original text of the Constitution. Let's not forget that if we were to adopt that mentality we would loose all the Civil Rights provisions of the last 100 years. You really want to go back to that?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
No law has been broken. You site code but you do not site an incident that has been heard before this committee that has been proven to be false. So although again you site the code's that may or may not be enforced when you state that the law has been broken you lack the actual act in which it was. So my rebuttal is that there has been no act against either code you site in reference to this matter. There is an investigation but no proof of such an act has been presented. So I would be careful when making a statement that a law has been broken.
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
I am not saying we should go back 100 years however I am saying that the actions of the Congress being taken under the cloak of oversight is not based on the constitution and I am unable to find a USC that gives Congress the power to Interrogate Administration officials over the firing of a political appointee. So the next question I have is there any place in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted this power over the Executive Branch?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 35 > § 541
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
All 9 of the US attorneys that resigned had served for over 5 years.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
BelaVrana1 year, 2 months ago
What exactly had she done in life to warrant eternal damnation, other than writing opinions you apparently do not agree with?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
lovemylibs1 year, 2 months ago
You'll never be in my bush's league, sonny boy. Now Kerry on.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 2 months ago
UnusualSuspect said:
"Shrub will probably add a condition that Congress has to keep its mouth shut. And to boot, Shrub will probably have the "private" meeting wiretapped, just to make sure the committee doesn't say a thing, because if they do, then Shrub will have evidence that they lied about talking, and that would bring up a whole new investigation as to why Congress lied about spilling the beans to get to the truth about Shrub hiding the truth.
Ah...politicians...don't you just love 'em?"
Wow, you're the reason I invest in Alcoa.
Have ya noticed how much longer aircraft "cemtrails" opps I meant "contrails" are lately?
Ya know the "V" chip is actually a government "bug"
Bush actually has Bin Laden on ice and is just waiting for the "right time" to bring him out.
Reply -
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Factually incorrect. The reason is to avoid what has now been pushed on the American people by the Legislative branch. It is a separation of powers issue. In regards to the issue of hiring and firing executive branch political appointees it is the President of the United states of America as stated in the Constitution.
Article II Section 1: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago
jai61 Says: I know one thing, No matter how much they trash Dems, Repubs do nothing for the people of this country.
.
.
As a DemLib, we figured you only know one thing...that's because of BDS...
I will now fix your post: No matter how much they trash Reps, DemLibs do nothing for the people of this country. Except raise taxes....
Reply-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 2 months ago
Yeah but the dumber folk think they're coming after them too!!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
In 1981 Judge Alcee Hastings (D- Florida) was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. Today July 26th, 2007 Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) is Presiding over the House Of Representatives daily session. Now that is a sad comedy special being presented by the Democrat(ic) Party.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Another sad state of Affairs in the Schumer Led Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee?
72307 The office of the state attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, has just released a 53-page report that clears the State Senate majority leader, Republican Joseph L. Bruno, of any wrongdoing in his use of state helicopters, but raises serious questions about the conduct of aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer. The findings amount to a devastating assessment and a serious blow to Governor Spitzer, who recently completed his first six months in office.
71307 -GOV. Spitzer might want to screen his calls better when relaxing at home, because a certain politician is becoming too much of a Chatty Cathy. Sen. Charles Schumer, rarely at a loss for words, was lauding Spitzer for his accessibility yesterday at a meeting with the city's congressional delegation when he divulged that the two have become regular weekend phone pals. "I call him at his house Sunday nights, and we talk about things"
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Sen. Chuck Schumer's former opposition research staffers, abused Maryland GOP Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's Social Security number to obtain his private credit report. Sen. Schumer, who denies having any knowledge of the scheme, has still issued no apology for the abuse of Steele's personal data.
What did Schumer have to do with the illegal activity perpetrated against Bruno? Was it a planned tactic of the Schumer Led Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee similar to the illegal activity that the DSCC was involved in with the Identity Theft case of Lt. Gov Steele? This is looking like a pattern of abuse of illegal tactics used at the Schumer led DSCC. The DSCC should voluntarily turn over all records in regards to Bruno and if they do not voluntarily turn them over should have their phone records and correspondences subpoenaed in a widening investigation into Schumer's possible involvement. If nothing it would clear all suspicions of Schumer having a hand in this illegal activity.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
Was it illegal for the President to fire 9 US attorney's who had served out their full 4 year terms? No it was not. This is a witch hunt and may be in violation of the Hatch act as these activities are being conducted at the behest of Move-on-Org. An investigation into how the Democrat(ic) party devised these plans to harass the Bush Administration rather than doing the business of the people and at who's suggestion they have taken this course of action is in order!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago
It is not old crap it is here and now. The administration had every right to fire the Attorneys. The claims of the Democrat(ic) party and it appears you as well the "culture of corruption" is the Personification of hypocrisy. Alcee Hasting presiding over the House of Representatives. Give me a break. Leahy once on the intel committee and removed for leaking classified information leading the charge here. Oh my god. Chuck Schumer led organization involved in Identity theft (a felony) and nothing done about it. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted on federal charges of racketeering, money-laundering and soliciting more than $400,000 in bribes in connection with years of trying to broker business deals in Africa and is offered a chairmanship by Nanci Pelosi during the investigation. Feinstein steers billions to her husband. Reid Millions to his sons.
There was nothing illegal about the firings. This my friend is the proverbial snipe hunt. Period
Reply-
0%
ret25usn1 year, 2 months ago
I did not say democrats haven't done anything wrong. I just said it's not justification for the republicans to do things wrong. like I said, same old crap you try to justify wrong doing by the republicans by pointing out what the democrats do wrong. I say both should answer for what they do. Thats the difference, look up hypocrisy in the dictionary. Then look in the mirror.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
RR4RR1 year, 2 months ago
Are you really still hung up on the 2000 election? How sad of a life it must be.
Do you forget that EVERY recount of the FL votes showed Bush won?
You're just ******ed off that the Dems didn't get an UNCONSTITUTIONAL revote.
You can't know the results of the election and then cry "do-over" or "best 2 of 3".
So, actually either Gore or Kerry couldn't win on the legality of voting, so again, the left making up history.
Reply-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 2 months ago
Well, confused and Stupid are here, Idiot may as well join the fun!
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago
Matteu00 Says:
Why have a vote in the first place! HA!
.
Well....that is something that is possible under the US Constitution and even under the 12th Amendment:
Article II: Section 1.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons. They shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
KeyserSooze1 year, 2 months ago
"um we are actually.
I have tried to tell the Conservatives on here countless times that Bush actually is our servant.
they get really mad at that....
President Bush serves at the pleasure of the American people."
You're confusing them being mad, with them laughing at you.
Here's the cold hard truth for you to chew on.
The popular vote is only advisory. The vote of record is the electoral vote. We have a representative republic, and the people we vote for locally apoint the electors who then vote for the president.
Of course if no candidate manages to receive a plurality of electoral votes, then the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top recipients of electoral votes.
It may make yo fell better to believe that you have a say, but in reality, you don't.
Reply-
-
0%
inaroundabout1 year, 2 months ago
In fact a member of the electoral college has voted for someone other than who the majority of the citizens of their state voted for 156 times. These are called "faithless electors". 82 of those times the elector had no legitimate reason (i.e. death of the candidate voted for) for changing their vote.
Here is a list of some of them:
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm
Reply -
0%
KeyserSooze1 year, 2 months ago
"You're twisting the facts Keiser."
No, I'm presenting the facts to counter an incorrect comment made by someone else. What I said is 100% accurate.
"Name one instance where an electoral college member has voted AGAINST the will of the majority in their represented state."
Although it's happened many times, that is not the issue, so it is waste of time to go down that path.
Again, the popular vote is advisory. We tell the electors how we would like them to vote, but the vote of record, that which elects the president, is the electoral vote tally, not the popular vote.
The person I was responding to was wrong.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 2 months ago
KeyserSooze said:
"The popular vote is only advisory. The vote of record is the electoral vote. We have a representative republic, and the people we vote for locally apoint the electors who then vote for the president.
Of course if no candidate manages to receive a plurality of electoral votes, then the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top recipients of electoral votes."
KeyserSooze, this is an exercise in futility, these are the folks who found punch card ballots confusing.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 2 months ago
"I have tried to tell the Conservatives on here countless times that Bush actually is our servant.
they get really mad at that.."
Uh, so is the Congress, and are they doing anything meaningful? Or playing stupid games?
Reply
-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
The Dems are the biggest bunch of A-holes...Man, I cannot stand them or their politics...
There are so many more important matters in the world to focus on...This ain't one of the them.
Dems: Quit puffing your chest out and trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill....We all know this is political postering...all for nothing, nonsensical, worthless rhetoric...No wonder the "do-nothing" Dem party have crappy aprroval ratings...They waste their time and effort on stupid stuff like this...
'08 is looking rather glim for you libs...So sorry...
Reply-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 2 months ago
FSU...
No, we're sorry for the Republicans...come January, 2009, a new President will take office, and he/she won't be wearing an elephant suit. (I've always thought of the old saying... "an elephant in a china shop" when it comes to the current President...it just seems appropriate, doesn't it...LOL...)
Reply -
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
Funny Teech, wasn't it you or another liberal blasting me the other day because I kept bringing up Clinton pointing out the huge hypocrisy from the left regarding pardoning, finding OBL, 9/11 etc...
Now why is it, Mr wizard, you can use Clinton as a pawn to make your silly points, but the conservatives cannot...
Funny, how you two-faced, liberals seem to work...
Reply-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
"huge hypocrisy from the left regarding pardoning, finding OBL, 9/11 etc..."
We found OBL?? Oh wait No we didn't did we. AND that is after BUsh called him Public Enemy No 1. Kinda odd tho how during Clinton term when he wanted to freeze Bin Ladens assets in the US, the REPUBLICANS voted it down saying there was no evidence Bin Laden was guilty. Now I guess OBL security people must have more on the ball then Dumya Intel people since he STILL hasnt caught him. Hmmmmm
AND that just continued after Bush took office. LKets recount all the decisive steps Bushie took after he took office. You know now that Clinton who didnt think terrorism was a problem was out of office and those "we fight terror" Republicans took office. Oh yeah Bush didnt do anything, in fact he took more vacation then any other President in history AND completely ignored a security brief warning of 9/11. Great Job those REPUBLICANS did.
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
Yea...how about those Clintons who ignored every Al-Quaida threat known to man...You know the USS Cole bombings, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings...You know, the things that happen WHILE he was in office...You would think a smart, smug, educated young man like Clinton would pick up the clues and do something about it...But, alas..he did nothing...The Sudan offerend OBL's head on a platter multiple time and Clinton refused because the CIA told him to back down because he hadn't been "certified"...What a crock of crap...And yes, sure...he left office and passed his garbage on to Bush to clean up...What a guy !
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Gecko12671 year, 2 months ago
FSU...I've read lots of your posts and have become convinced your just on netscape having fun..I like this excerpt from your bio...
"I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but I am a conservative and believe strongly in conservative values and morals which this country was founded on. I can tolerate just about anything...except liberalism. Liberalism is a poison to our society and unfortunately, most liberals don't even know they are liberals or they deny it"
I have yet to see you post a true conservative message regarding how unconservative Bush actually is...and by the way, Democrat does not equal liberal -you realize that, right?
To test your conservative credentials, please answer this question truthfully, "How do you feel about President Bush's position on Immigration?"
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
Hey Gecko,
Since you haven't been around THAT long, I'll educate you....First of all, if you ask ANY liberal in this thread or other threads, if their honest, they will tell you my position with Bush and his "Amnesty" Bill...you damn right I was outraged...It's was a Ted Kennedy Bill anyway and we all know where HE stands....here's a hint. It's not on the right...
I never said Bush was a true conservative...I think he is on certain issues like the War in Iraq, the economy (with his tax-cut implementation), abortion, gay rights, etc...Which I agree with...
So, did I pass your friggin' test ?
Reply-
-
0%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 2 months ago
I see why Gore lost in FL now, they had FSU92dropout counting the ballots, and he only has 10 fingers and toes. :)
Reply
-
-
0%
Gecko12671 year, 2 months ago
Well, your response on immigration sounds about right for a conservative from FL. Thanks for being honest. I could have lived without the jab about Ted Kennedy- don't care much for him myself.
You got it right that Bush is not conservative- just look at his fiscal responsibility in the private and public sectors. Doesn't that bother you that we borrow tons of money from SE Asia to fund the war instead of a war tax to make the American people pay attention and realize that we are in a war?
Reply
-
-
0%
nothingpetty1 year, 2 months ago
I think history shows that it has always been the liberal element in any field that has made the strides we enjoy today. In their time frame, Washington, Jefferson, etc. were the liberals (though they did not call themselves by that name, particularly)- King George was the conservative.
Reply -
0%
GWHayduke1 year, 2 months ago
Although 'perfesser' FSU attempted to 'educate' you, it works more like this:
Present a valid argument and someone will resort to name calling - eg FSU.
Present an invalid or flawed argument and you will, no doubt, be refuted with facts, not mere opinion.
Reply
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
ROFLMAO, Frosty Shake guy in 12 years the REPUBLICAN dominated congress did.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait gime a second Ill think of something
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
dum,
And the approval ratings for the Democratic Majority Congress is?
I can go all night if you want, dumjerk...
Reply-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
ROFLMAO Frosty Shake U guy you;re still harping on that. It seems THAT has been shot down so many times already. Altho it might still be echoing around within the vast unknown spaces between your ears. It seems the main reason for the disapproval is the lack of IMPEACHMENT proceedings against YOUR guy. ROFLMAO.
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
hmmm...Again, you lose dumdum...
Check the lead stories where your precious party is threatening to issue "contempt of Congress citations" to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton...I know its not impeachment proceedings of Bush, but the approval rating are still in the toilet..Despite their bogas attempts to indict anybody and everybody that is Republican...It's politcal postering and the American people can spot fakes when they see them...They know the Dems are worthless, do-nothings that only want to raise taxes and except defeat from our enemies...I mean did you even hear them discuss the word "terror" on the the stupid "YouTube" debate that recently took place? At all ? They're clueless !
Your party is so worthless....Their approval ratings are in the tank because they haven't do one thing good since they have had that majority power, not one thing...They're too focused on Bush and destroying him...That's why your pathetic party is...well...pathetic.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
As an outsider I look at USA politics neither as a dem. or rep. and really see no difference. Both parties pi$$ on the voters, lie, cheat and both serve a different master. For every fault you can point out in one party you can do to the other. USA really needs a third choice and maybe the jacka$$ and the rogue elephant can get back to reality.
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 2 months ago
Hannibal...
I totally agree with you...this time. I agree that both parties need to be cleaned up...
What I don't agree with is people like Dunkirk who Bush-Bash and don't look at their own parties...Half the time if you look at my posts, I am defending conservatism...I know Bush isn't a true Conservative, but until we have someone that comes along better, I agree with almost everything Bush has done. No president is perfect...but certainly Hiliary, Obama, and these clowns on the left aren't the answer...Their Socialist.... out what they stand for...
I like Lieberman, Giulani and Fred Thomas if he runs...But I don't like EVERYTHING about them...There are some things you have to live with...Socialism and a Totalitarianism is not one of them...
I'm going to bed...I'm sort of tired embarrasing dumkirk. It takes a lot of energy out of you...
Talk to you later !
Reply-
0%
Xaos1 year, 2 months ago
You failed to mention the true conservative candidate, Ron Paul, our best hope for a return to constitutional government
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
"Half the time if you look at my posts, I am defending conservatism.."
ROFLMAO, half the time (actually its more like ALL the time) your posts r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-