Rush Limbaugh:
Don’t fire Gonzales even though he’s incompetent because winning elections is much more important:
I’m at a loss to understand why it is that even some people on our side and the conservative media think throwing Gonzales away is going to stop this. Now, they’ll say, “Well, that’s not what we’re trying to do. We want competence. We are conservatives, and we have high values, and high standards.” This is a battle going on here. There’s an election that’s going to hinge on stuff like this, and everybody the administration throws overboard is a tantamount admission to people that pay scant attention to politics there’s all kinds of corruption going on in there.
More Rush: “USA Today’s got a poll: ‘Do you think something’s wrong about the firing of eight US attorneys?’ 72% said yes. 72% of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about, but yet they voted, so these polls matter.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Wow.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:00 amThank you, Rush. You make it so easy.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:00 amFor once, Mr. Limbaugh spoke the truth.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am“Well, that’s not what we’re trying to do. We want competence. We are conservatives, and we have high values, and high standards.†— Rush Limbaugh
That’s like a drug dealer or a child molestor saying that he wants to live in a crime-free neighborhood because he has high values and high standards… Right… LOL
March 30th, 2007 at 10:01 amBoth Carter and Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys for political reasons (and not only at the beginning of their terms as president).
March 30th, 2007 at 10:02 ampersonally, i would rather that bush NOT throw gonzales overboard… i think the longer this goes on, the more shit is going to come to light… if bush and gonzo hold out, it can only work in favor of getting all the cards on the table… as i’ve repeatedly maintained, what we DON’T know is going to completely overwhelm us when it’s finally revealed… we will be horror-struck in the extreme…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am“I’m at a loss to understand why it is that even some people on our side and the conservative media think throwing Gonzales away is going to stop this.
Did he mean to say that? I don’t listen to him, so I don’t know how often he mentions the media. I thought he switched over to alternately conducting and decrying drive-bys. Is he off-message or did he inadvertently reveal the truth?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:03 amAs ‘Tweety Bird’ would say, “THERE IS ! THERE IS ! THERE IS CORRUPTION GOING ON IN THERE !”
March 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am.
“Admission” being the operative word. Rush in more the “never admit you’re wrong” school. Better to have incompetent fools in administrative roles.
It’s also wonderful that he’s tacitly admitted that Conservatives don’t really give a damn about high standards or high values. It’s all about Power. Period.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:04 amDon’t believe me though — Marston was investigating a DEMOCRATIC Representative that asked Carter to replace him — look for yourself:
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,916110,00.html
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,919302,00.html
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,919591-3,00.html
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
A recent interview of Carter on KNX 1070 newsradio had him saying he did not recall the specifics of the Marston replacement.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:05 amBoth Carter and Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys for political reasons (and not only at the beginning of their terms as president).
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
First - prove it.
Secondly - if you can show validation - so what? Just because O.J. Simpson killed people and got away with it doesn’t make it okay for you to kill people and use him as an excuse.
Seriously - take a class in logic.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:07 amThere’s an election that’s going to hinge on stuff like this
and “that’s what it’s all about”…
March 30th, 2007 at 10:08 amEverybody: put jake on your “ignore list” until he says something new, something that hasn’t been refuted.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:08 amAlso, the “political reasons” that Clinton and Carter had were exactly the same as Bush’s: to obstruct investigations of political allies and facilitate politically motivated prosecutions of political enemies.
It’s all exactly the same. Just like being a 75 year old veteran is the same as being a 33 year old office assistant, or being an independent is the same as being a Republican.
stupid liberals.
IF LAURA BUSH, PROSTITUTE, WAS REPLACED ON THE CORNER OF 1ST AND CONSTITUTION AVE. FOR “POLITICAL REASONS” DON’T YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:08 amHa. Rush must’ve forgot his meds.
This is a very important commentary on the current situation of the blissfully ignorant public finally having it’s eyes opened. It’s getting hard to ignore all of the corruption. Even if you don’t care about politics and would rather watch American Idol and just go shopping.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amFor the record, I did not fault either Carter or Clinton when they replaced U.S. Attorneys based on political reasons either.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am“First - prove it.”
no need. it’s an official talking point.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:11 amJake,
There were only TWO Clinton U.S. Attorneys who were asked to resign mid-term.
* Larry Colleton resigned shortly after he was videotaped grabbing Jacksonville television reporter Richard Rose by the throat.
* Kendall Coffey resigned amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer during a visit to a gentleman’s club.
Where’s the “political reason” ?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:12 amAn admission that the administration is full of all kinds of corruption. Of course the people who DO pay attention to politics ALREADY KNOW the administration’s full of corruption (not to mention incompetence).
Thanks Rush. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:12 amSheesh…Shakey’s in overdrive today.
And it appears that he’s still unable to comprehend the fundamental difference between the questionable dismissals of U.S. attorneys in the Chimpy administration and the questionable dismissals of U.S. attorneys in the administrations that have gone before.
Unable…or unwilling. The jury’s still out on that one.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:13 amRush sez:
This just gets better and better…Rush is now slinging insults at the American people for daring to let their opinions be known.
Yes, Rush, these ‘blithering idiots’ do vote, so they do matter…and that terrifies you, doesn’t it?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:15 amBoth Carter and Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys for political reasons (and not only at the beginning of their terms as president).
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
And Jake continues his grim march forward. His situation reminds me of the Russian soldiers under Stalin who were told to charge the enemy without weapons.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amJake,
You know, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, so is it OK for Bush to start another holocaust? I have two children, ages six and nine, and I always have to explain to them that just because someone else does something, that does not mean they can do it too.
However, I want Gonzales to stay right where he is. I hope he does not resign. I am hoping for this for the same reason MOST republicans want him to resign. Once we have a democratic president, there will never be another democratic scandal. Thanks to Bush for setting this precedent and arguing for it so hard, any attorney who even thinks about investigating a democrat will be instantly fired. And there is nothing the right-wing can do about it because they wanted it this way.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amI love it. Every day a Democratic supermajority looks more and more like a sure thing.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amInteresting that Rush feels free to admit that the United States doesn’t matter, the Republican party is the only thing that matters.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amI hope Rush and Gonzalez both stick around a long time. Pretty soon every, man, woman and child in the country will hear the way these people lack respect for the people.
for the lurkers, the two words that don’t pass the smell test in this whole mess: “loyal Bushies”
March 30th, 2007 at 10:18 amDemocracy is when 51% of everyone else agrees with me.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:18 amRush should just take his bottle of sex enhancing drugs, pack them (and whatever other paraphenalia he needs), and go back to the Dominican Republic for some more sex tourism and get himself some more sexual release from whomever (or whatever) he was getting it from last year. He needs to do this before his head explodes. On the air. Gosh. Then again, maybe he should just keep talking and let his head explode. It would be satifying to watch. Too bad it did not happen while he was jiggling in his chair making fun of Michael J. Fox. Or a heart attack while he is doing his little dances. That would work for me too.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:19 amSo Rush says that it doesn’t matter what 72% polled think. I’ve got some math for Rush: 29% ain’t gonna win many elections for the Republicans, even if they divide and confuse the opposition.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am“USA Today’s got a poll: ‘Do you think something’s wrong about the firing of eight US attorneys?’ 72% said yes. 72% of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about, but yet they voted, so these polls matter.â€
…says the King of Blithering Idiots.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:22 amWhy does Rush hate America so much?
Cheers,
March 30th, 2007 at 10:24 amjake, jake, jake, you ignorant slut, the underlying problem with the US Attorneys is not only the obvious flouting of the law, but also the fact that another corrupt GOP senator allowed an aide to tack on an amendment to a bill that allows Monkeyboy Lawbreaker Moron-In-Chief to appoint more of his lackeys without senate approval. What is it about America and democracy that you hate so much?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:24 amI think that Rush Limbaugh is starting to see his entire corrupt world falling down around him with no end in sight. One disaster after another directly involving the Bush Administration and the terrible people that feed off of it including Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing media. I love it …..it is soooooo well deserved.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by bob (not the hacker)
Just put him on the ignore list, period. It’s not like he’s willing to listen to anything we say anyway.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am#5 Jake:
Both Carter and Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys for political reasons (and not only at the beginning of their terms as president).
That’s a lie. But you know that. It’s your job to lie here, to shill for the Dubya maladministration….
Cheers,
March 30th, 2007 at 10:25 amThis is what’s coming through loud and clear with all of these hearings. We all knew that the White House was politicizing every office in the federal government that they could get their hands on, but when you listen to some of these people testify, it’s plain as day that the political appointees themselves are politicized right down to the bone. They see nothing wrong with using any and all offices of the federal government to their advantage in helping their party. They don’t understand, or claim not to understand, why it would be considered a conflict of interest. They seem to be dumbfounded as to why anyone would consider it to be taking unfair advantage. They’re just working towards their all-important goal. They’re just putting every effort into helping the Republican party. Nothing else is as important as that to them. And rules go right out the window. If somebody tries to stop them, they just play dumb. Or sloppy or forgetful.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:26 amThere is a culture that has temporarily risen to power in our country, which Limbaugh is a prime example of, that simply no longer understands why telling the truth is important. They see no reason to. Facts, situations, things in general - are just clay to be manipulated in ways to protect the tribe in power. Period. They are sociopaths. The claim that their highest standard is God. What they mean though ( most of them don’t even know this) is that God is a word that stands for - SELF. Their God is literally themselves…..what THEY thing, what THEY feel…regardless of other people. There are no other people for the likes of Rush Limbaugh. There are only pawns….props..in his ugly mind. Thank Goodness there are more reasonable people then there are people like them. Their time, as I say often, is ending.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:26 amI’m a senile old man! Robots are out to get me!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:28 amCalling 72% of Americans “blithering idiots” definitely warrants “Worst Person In the World” honors on Olbermann tonight.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:29 amI can’t sleep at night! Clowns will eat me!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:31 amI truly don’t think Jake is for real. He is an operative. He’s ALWAYS here and the reason for him being here is to disrupt. My opinion. As I’ve said before, how many people on the left hang out on right wing blogs day after day after day? Think about it. I tell you, he’s not worth our time. There are fewer and fewer people who talk like Jake left in our country today. PUT HIM ON IGNORE. He either flames or repeats his points without any true dialogue with others.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:31 amRush knows that his listening audience is the other 29% in the poll.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:32 amFor the record, at one point in time, MORE than 72% of Americans supported this President — weren’t they “blithering idiots” then according to you guys?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:32 amWell said El Rushbo! Keep after the looney left.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:34 amI’ve trademarked this franchise. My attorney will be contacting all other Jake’s to offer Jakeâ„¢ franchises. Please cease and desist until further notice.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:35 amMy wife is disgusted because I fart in my sleep.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:36 amDon’t mind me…I’m a crazy old man! Crazy! Crazy Crazerton!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:37 amFor the record, at one point in time, MORE than 72% of Americans supported this President — weren’t they “blithering idiots†then according to you guys? — Jake
No, because - unlike Rush - people who disagree with me don’t immediately get labeled as blithering idiots. Disagreement is good.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:39 amThe nice thing is, when Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, Republicans will support having U.S. Attorneys who are nothing more than Democratic Party operatives tasked with solely investigating charges against Republicans, and will give every Democratic appointee an up or down vote in the Senate.
Republicans won’t attempt to block any appointment, no matter how liberal. Republicans won’t cry foul if someone is replaced because s/he happens to be investigating a Democrat, thus ending the investigation.
Republicans won’t mind if their committee meetings are shuffled off to the basement. Republicans will gladly accept a liberal administration and won’t grouse over Democrats rubber-stamping their own.
yeah. right.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am[…] Progress this morning: Rush Limbaugh:Don’t fire Gonzales even though he’s incompetent because winning elections is much more […]
March 30th, 2007 at 10:41 amAnyone not on my Ignore List(tm) who would like me to explain why Bush’s dismissal of these attorneys is immoral and corrupt while Clinton’s was an act of divine provenance, just let me know.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:41 amre #46,
March 30th, 2007 at 10:43 amno dear it’s not the farting, it’s the belching. I know it’s confusing, they both smell the same.
Jake
Again, the real frame here is that you guys want to show that government doesn’t work. So it is in fact a good thing that those of your viewpoint are so god awful at governing. Why replace Alberto Gonzalez when he’s proving that government is broken, and needs to be done away with.
I find it hilarious that those of your ilk tend to distrust government so much, but keep running for office with the hopes of being bad at governing. If you become good at governing, then all of a sudden, government becomes becomes a good thing right?
You’re probably thinking “That government which governs least, governs best.” I would argue, that government which governs well, governs best.
If you keep punching holes in the bottom of the ship it will sink. Don’t worry, we’ll put it back together regardless of your efforts to destroy it.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am“weren’t they “blithering idiots†then according to you guys?”
No. Many of the folks who supported Bush early on were well intentioned folks who believed that Bush was what he claimed to be, and that a president should be given the benefit of the doubt during a national threat. That doesn’t make them idiots. It just took them longer to recognize that they were misled. Even smart people with good intentions can sometimes be misled.
On the other hand, as for the people who still support him after witnessing so much dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption - I don’t think they are all “idiots” (maybe some). I do however think that a lot of them prefer an authoritarian government to a democratic republic, particularly when there is a looming threat of attack (which the authoritarian leaders will make sure is always the case).
March 30th, 2007 at 10:45 amI am sorry, but it is very true. Most people get spoon fed the news, they do no research or bother to find out whether or not the media is lying to them.
Most Americans watch the news and come out as if God had spoken to them.
99% of the people that I have spoken to about the whole Gonzalez thing have ZERO clue to what is happening, yet these are the same ones that say, “well he should go…” and when asked why they reply, “becausee I saw in the news last night that he is involved in some type of scandal…”
so, thinkprogress.org is being very, very disingenious and they know it, but they don’t care.
and if thinkprogress.org is going to cry and whine about right wing pundits putting politics over the truth, they better start looking with in their own party, the Democrats.
Sadly enough both sides do it, pundits on both sides do it. wrong, very wrong….
but we cant’ expect thinkprogress.org to be fair can we, they only see wrong on the right side of politics. sad, sad….
March 30th, 2007 at 10:46 amNo, Jake–we thought they were wrong.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:46 am#50 - I personally am not claiming that Clinton’s act was divine provenance. Clinton probably did a lot of political shady things while in office, and I don’t support him either. However, “Clinton did it” is not an excuse to break the law. Bush’s dismissals were corrupt (I believe), because they were obstruction of justice. Now - I’m not perfect, and I could be wrong about that, and that’s why I hope we get more public testimony to see exactly what happened.
I don’t understand why some people think that it’s ok for Bush to act immorally and be corrupt because Clinton was the same way. That logic just doesn’t make sense to me. How about a system of government where no one acts immorally? And no one is corrupt? Maybe that’s impossible, but surely we can do better than this.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:47 amOf course, if 72% of the American people had agreed with Rush, then he would have been touting their deep wisdom, tremendous intelligence, and unsurpassed patriotism…not to mention their stunning good looks, six-pack abs, and awesome sexual prowess. In other words, just like how Rush thinks of himself.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:47 amFor the record, at one point in time, MORE than 72% of Americans supported this President — weren’t they “blithering idiots†then according to you guys? — Jake
Actually, no. I was probably in that 72% at one point until Bush f’ed everything up by invading Iraq. Now I know better.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:48 amCrump’s Brother,
Democrats have done as much of a good job at destroying our government and make it run like crap as the Republicans. Take off the partisan glasses, BOTH parties are to blame for how bad our government runs, BOTH.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:49 amI’m a senile old man!
Maybe in DOG years… LOL
Robots are out to get me!
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Actually, I think it’s supposed to be the Islamicists (I don’t think people like the real Jake know that it is Muslims who follow Islam). LOL
March 30th, 2007 at 10:51 amKeep in mind, this entire series of comments stems from the blatherings of a drug-crazed degenerate. Just to put things in perspective.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:51 amI mean c’mon why hasn’t thinkprogress.org put up any story about Senator Feinstein brewing scandal?? hmmm….
if it was a Republican that was invovled in this scandal thinkprogress.org would be crying about it….
so, thinkprogress.org is doing what they claim Rush Limbaugh did on his show. Thinkprogress.org is putting politics over the truth, putting winning elections over the truth…
typical political tactics, blame the other side of what you are doing…
March 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amHow about a system of government where no one acts immorally? And no one is corrupt? Maybe that’s impossible, but surely we can do better than this.
Comment by Sean — March 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am
From your lips to g*d’s ears.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am#59: I agree with you that both parties have showed their corrupt ways and lack of ability (or desire) to run the government in the best interests of Americans. I would argue, however, that while the Democrats do this to some extent, Republicans do it as a matter of policy and to an extent far beyond that of Democrats.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:53 amclearly, 76% of us shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
yessuh, mister rush. we’ll do as you say. i’m just whistlin’ down here in dixie awaiting your command.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:58 amATRWS,
really? you think Republicans do it as a matter of policy and far beyond Democrats?
I don’t know, all I know is that our government is broken, it was broken under Clinton with a Republican controlled Congress, it is broken under bush under a Democrat controlled Congress.
remember that Democrats controlled Congress from the 1950s until 1993…what did the Democrat congress do for us? and from 1994 until 2006, what did the Republican Congress do for us?
both parties have put their politics and their want to control and have power over us, the citizens and over the United States.
we are a civillization in decline, much like the Roman Empire in its last decades. “Rome” is burning and all left wing and right wing blogs, pundits, and politicians can do is point fingers at each other instead of fixing the problem.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:00 amBlithering idiots? That’s Rush’s audience alright. Don’t his listeners ever get offended when he calls them names?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:00 amtypical political tactics, blame the other side of what you are doing…
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Think “Progress” isn’t exactly trying to hide that this is a liberal blog… (It’s all in the name).
If you want the other side, you are free to go elsewhere to find it. TP isn’t meant to be one-stop shopping for all your news stories…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:02 amRush, and his local radio clones who talk about this everyday, miss the reason this became an issue. The AG fired people who were from his team and if he’d left it at that, ther would be no hearings. But in a stupid attempt to jstify the resignations, the AG accused a bunch of lawyers of incompetence.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amThese were loyal team players, more interested in their job than in the politics of the AG. They could not,however, brook being called incompetents by their own boss. As Chiara noted, it can make getting another job slightly mor difficult. So they started speaking out. Which is how we ended up with the cover-up being more dangerous to the AG than the firings.
If the AG had just fired thm and said nothing, there would be no hearings.
I mean think about this….
All members of Congress are in a retirement plan that is NOT Social Security, but rather a much, much better retirenment plan than any of us will ever have….
whether it is Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Murtha, or Republicans in Congress, once they retire, their retirement plan is much better than anyone of us will ever have…
If Senators and Representative believe that Social Security is in such good shape, how come they have a seperate retirement plan than us? why?
I mean let us be honest, in all Presidential elections and in most congressional elections it has come down to who do you believe is the lesser of two evils, right? not who is the best man or woman, but rather who do you believe is going to screw me, my family and my community less…..
March 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amunbelievable,
that is the problem with American politics today…silly little catch phrases that both sides want to grab unto and put them out there as a marketing campaing…
sorry, both sides have a huge lack of progress and if thinkprogress.org, it wouldnt’ be afraid to use the term thinkliberal.org….
March 30th, 2007 at 11:06 amThe claims of “blithering idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about” is SO amusing coming from Rush “What Do You Mean Sherrod Brown’s White?” Limbaugh
March 30th, 2007 at 11:06 amwe are a civillization in decline, much like the Roman Empire in its last decades. “Rome†is burning and all left wing and right wing blogs, pundits, and politicians can do is point fingers at each other instead of fixing the problem.
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Not really. The Democrats have passed a lot of Bills in the House to try and fix teh mess that Bush has made of our country. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the Senate are refusing to help, and Bush is threatening to veto everything he doesn’t like… That’s not a mutual fiddling.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:06 amCaptain Kirk,
If you caught the jist of what I was saying you would have caught a couple of key points.
A) its a matter of one’s perspective about government. The modern conservative movement has positioned itself as the anti-government movement. While I will not argue that many in the Democratic Party have not been good legislators or executives, the intent (generally) speaking is to be effective at delivering good government. While many in the Republican Party (currently the torch carriers of the conservative movement) have been very outspoken in their desire to do away with government. So the intent ( see the response to Hurricane Katrina) is to show tht government can’t help people. Which is false. Government can help, as long as those who are running it, actually care for it.
B) I was in no way trying to make this a partisan thing. It is a general worldview thing. I am no fan of Democratic Leaders like Rahm Emmanuel and the Clintons. They are to blame largely (along with the Gingrich led congress) for the atrocious trade policies that have helped erode this countries middle class.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:06 amJust a quick (and slightly off-topic) note that Michael Smerconish will be on Bill Mahr for some odd reason tonight.
As with Mr. Frum, Smerconish has absolutely no credibility and I hope that the blogs pick up on that after he spews out whatever BS he has to offer.
:::::
March 30th, 2007 at 11:07 amgott a agree with Capt. Kirk, If true, Feinstein is no better than Cheney.The enemy is corruption.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:08 amCapt. Kirk = Concern Troll
March 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am#43 Jake
For the record, at one point in time, MORE than 72% of Americans supported this President — weren’t they “blithering idiots†then according to you guys?
Nope. Just slow learners. Like you, but not nearly so dense. And besides, when the Washington Post and NY Times and all of the rest of the MSM were cheerleaders for Bush’s war, average American citizens had no idea what was really going on. Once they got an inkling and started to realize they were being lied to, and stopped taking for granted what Bush told them, the whole thing slowly started to unravel for Bushco.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:11 amI mean let us be honest, in all Presidential elections and in most congressional elections it has come down to who do you believe is the lesser of two evils, right?
Honest? You mean you usually aren’t? I find it’s easier to just be honest. If people don’t like it, well, that’s their issue…
To answer your question - No. I’ve voted ‘for’ more candidates than against their opponents. I still believe John Kerry would have been a good President. Not great - but he would have been an gigantic improvement over the retard currently running the show. “Be honest” - even you know that…
not who is the best man or woman, but rather who do you believe is going to screw me, my family and my community less…..
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:03 am
If you really feel that way, you should do something besides coming here and whining about a liberal blog. So start a campaighn, volunteer, spend your timebeing pro-active. Basically - take your own advice.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:11 amActually, Jake, I thought damn near ALMOST EVERY US Attorney is replaced for “political reasons.” When a new President takes office, he often replaces many or all of the US Attorneys in order to promote his agenda. This, of course is based on the assumption that the President’s agenda is not based on circumventing the Constitution in order to create a one-party system. This, however, WAS the Bushie’s agenda. The Attorneys were fired, coincidentally in highly competitive districts either refused to file charges on Democrats for voter fraud because there was NO evidence of voter fraud, or who intended to file charges on Republicans because there WAS evidence of wrongdoing. Regardless of your political affiliation, anyone who considers him or herself an “American” at all, should be incensed that anyone would try to take over the entire system of government like that. Even if your voice happens to agree with every little thing this Administration says and does (though those are often two different things), what they attempted to do would insure your voice wouldn’t matter anyway, you know, JUST IN CASE anything ever happened that you may disagree with. So you can either keep crying over what’s happened before, or you can help with the effort to make sure nothing like this can EVER happen again, no matter what letter in parentheses follows their name in the media.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am18.
Jake,
There were only TWO Clinton U.S. Attorneys who were asked to resign mid-term.
* Larry Colleton resigned shortly after he was videotaped grabbing Jacksonville television reporter Richard Rose by the throat.
* Kendall Coffey resigned amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer during a visit to a gentleman’s club.
Where’s the “political reason†?
Comment by VJ — March 30, 2007 @ 10:12 am
This needed to be repeated.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am#44 Patrick1
Well said El Rushbo! Keep after the looney left.
Anyone who calls him “El Rushbo” needs to have their lips peeled off of his boil-covered ass with a spatula.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:13 amunbelievable,
don’t assume so much….I alreadyvolunteer for political campaigns….
I also volunteer for what I believe are social causes.
I do have the right to complain, though right?
it seems that todaya both side of the eisle want to take away everyone’s right to speak their mind.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am#77Spock,
completly illogical….
March 30th, 2007 at 11:17 amScottie,
thank you….corruption knows not party, unlike many try to pretend here…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:18 amI notice that Jake showed up, delivered his requisite “Clinton did it too” and moved on. Maybe his work order only requires a single “Clinton did it” in order to have his invoice paid, and all those other times he stuck around to argue against all evidence and reason were on his own time.
In any case, I agree that Jake should be put on everyone’s Ignore Listâ„¢.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:19 amJake, honey, please stop sounding like a broken record. Even I am now getting tired of hearing (reading) the same boring repeated sound bites each and every post you (the real you) have been making for the past few days.
When you trot out those lame “but, Clinton…” phrases, you are sounding just like the Idiot in Chief. He is in the process of throwing temper tantrum after tantrum because he is now all alone in his glass house.
True, you may have the occasional supporter come in and reiterate what you have been saying, but you would think, after each and every time someone like BnF or TMM shoots down everything you have ever posted, you would get the hint.
You are doing nothing for yourself but sounding like a Bushie when you repeat the same sound bites over and over again.
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and was even trying to be polite to you earlier this week, but I’ve had it. Put me on “The List” or whatever, but I can’t keep listening to the same drivel from you and your supporters any more.
Good bye.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:19 amHe starting to see his purse get smaller and smaller.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:20 amI swear if all of us really and truly fully ignored you know who, it would stop. I guaruntee it. I bet you. Just try it.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am#59 Captain Kirk
Democrats have done as much of a good job at destroying our government and make it run like crap as the Republicans. Take off the partisan glasses, BOTH parties are to blame for how bad our government runs, BOTH.
It’s not even close right now. There were plenty of times in the past when the Democrats in Congress were doing some awful things, but for the past 10 years the GOP has been sliding into the abyss of bold-faced corruption. Ask yourself why they killed the defense contract oversight agency about 10 years ago and why they blocked every attempt to restore it while they were in the majority. They didn’t want to do oversight and they didn’t want anyone else to, either. But, they didn’t mind taking large campaign contributions and gifts from defense contractors during that time, did they?
Before you start with the “both parties do it” crap, you need to take a long hard look at what the Republican party has been doing and start acknowledging that.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:24 amseth and VJ:
There was never any “formal” investigation into those 2 firings — also, there were other mid-term replacements as well. That’s why I want to ask Clinton or Podesta the questions. Did you also see Carter’s replacement of Marston linked to above? Here a link to the CRS Report that lists at least 54 U.S. Attorneys replaced at some time other than beginning of the Presidnet’s term:
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
March 30th, 2007 at 11:26 amProud Dem:
Since no one has ever PROVEN these earlier Carter and Clinton replacements were NOT for political reasons — at least in the broad sense that Sampson testified about yesterday — I fail to see how I’ve been shot down. Maybe I missed it — can you point to where that has happened?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:28 amCan someone here PLEASE tell me how to put Jake on an ignore list?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:29 amI swear if all of us really and truly fully ignored you know who, it would stop. I guaruntee it. I bet you. Just try it.
Comment by ForTruth
I’m really gonna do it this time…..I swear I am.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amslappy magoo:
There were LEGITIMATE reasons for firing all these U.S. Attorneys as well.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amdon’t assume so much….I alreadyvolunteer for political campaigns….
I assumed nothing. From your posts it’s clear that you’re wasting a lot of time in here whining about a liberal blog being liberal. Seems better spent doing something, Start a ‘balanced’ blog of your own…
I also volunteer for what I believe are social causes.
So? Apparently it doesn’t keep you busy enough that you have to take on rather petty issues…
I do have the right to complain, though right?
Complain - yes… But disrupt a discussion to do it over and over, and I have the right to complain about that. You are about being balanced, right?
it seems that todaya both side of the eisle want to take away everyone’s right to speak their mind.
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:16 am
I disagree. I don’t think you can make that claim about them all equally like that. It’s absolutistic, and unfair.
Go after the ones who have demonstrated this - don’t just lump in all the apples together with the few bad and expect to be taken seriously (which is actually my issue with your posts - I don’t take absolutism seriously because it doesn’t exist very often, and certainly not in this case).
March 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amI wonder if Jake used this moral equivalency on his parents last week when he pointed his guilty little finger at a poor sibling. Jake, this is an adult site. We can recommend many teenage/pop sites for you, if you’d like.. You are irrelevent son, and very boring. Go outside and play…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:32 amcorruption knows not party, unlike many try to pretend here…
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:18 am
That’s NOT what we’ve said. We’ve simply refuted your absolutistic claim that all of our politicians are equally corrupt. Not only have you offered no evidence to support your sweeping claim, but you’re making this personal.
Absolutism is a sign of conservativism. Not that some liberals aren’t - it’s just generally a sign of conservativism because it is tied into religious absolutism. It’s pretty obvious that you’re batting for the Right and trying to look neutral by attackign both parties. As a left of center Independent, it’s pretty obvious that the mess in Washington is not mutual. That the Republicans carry the greater burden. therefore, logic tells me that your argument is simply meant to insult the Democrats (since only 50% of the blame to Republicans is a vast improvement than the 90% that they actually hold).
March 30th, 2007 at 11:35 amWin at all cost, this is the “Rove Doctrine”. “Limp-Bug” has it down right and it slipped out.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:37 amIgnore….DONE
March 30th, 2007 at 11:37 amSean”
I am NOT saying “‘Clinton did it’ so that’s an excuse to break the law.” I am saying “Clinton and Carter and every other Democratic President did it BECAUSE it is not against the law to replace U.S. Attorneys based on political reasons.” See the difference? I definitely want a system of government where no one acts immorally and no one is corrupt — I don’t think that is impossible — I also want one where there are no double standards. You would agree with that, right?
Now, if any of the current dismissals were for the purpose of obstruction of justice, that’s another matter. Do you think a pre-emptive Presidential pardon of Rove would legally be “obstruction of justice”?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:38 amcircusfifthfloor:
“Son”, my parents went to be with their Lord a while ago now — how old are you?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:39 amRobots! Robots and clowns!
March 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am[…] got a poll: ‘Do you think something’s wrong about the firing of eight US attorneys?’” said Limbaugh. “72 percent said yes. 72 percent of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who […]
March 30th, 2007 at 11:42 amDo peolpe actually listen to Ol’Cottonhead? Wow.
These ‘conservatives’ would crucify Jesus claiming he supports terrorism.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:43 amunbelievable,
me making it personal? did you read your post #79 to me? you made it personal and now you cry, like a good partisan, when someone else uses your same tactics…..
It is obvious that you bat for the left, it never fails. When someone blames the other side more than their own, it is obviously that they are partisan.
If you are going to play the numbers game, don’t forget that Democrats have controlled Congress for decades longer than Republicans have.
Republicans have controlled the Presidency for more years, but Democrats have controlled Congress for far more years.
Please, you petty insults and dimb witted posts are a joke.
i could careless whether you believe me or not when I say that I am a true Independent, not a fake Independent like you.
When was the last time you voted Republican?
I have voted Republican and Democrat in local, State and Federal elections.
I don’t ascribe to a party or a silly ideology like you do, I ascribe to my personal beliefs and I vote for politicians that I believe agree with me.
also, it is funny that you attack absolutism in your post and yet you point out with ABSOLUTE certainty that Republicans have a greater blame….
I thought you said absolutism is a sign of religious whackos?!!
here is a clue for you, you can’t say that absolutism is wrong, since with this statement you are making an absolute, right?
typical, just typical…did you think before you wrote your post?
and don’t cry about making it personal since you did that long before I….
March 30th, 2007 at 11:47 amJake,
Read the PDF you provide a link for.
US attorneys are constantly being replaced, mostly for career advancement reasons. They move onto other jobs. That’s not the issue here.
On occasion, an attorney will be replaced due to serious performance issues…like the PDF says, there are valid reasons Reagan and Clinton replaced two attorneys. Such reasons are: bitting a topless dancer and choking someone (caught on video.) Neither of those activities sound like the kind of behavior you want USAttn’s involved in.
The Bush administration was replacing attorneys simply because they weren’t political enough for their liking. Many of the attorneys were involved in corruption probes that happened to be on Republican congressmen and were otherwise getting glowing performance evaluations. There was no reason to fire them; they were doing their job.
Bush has always put loyalty above performance, and this attorney probe is just more evidence to support that.
Rather than defend that which cannot be defended, simply admit that this administration politicizes EVERYTHING and has polarized the country more than it’s ever been.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:50 amHere a link to the CRS Report that lists at least 54 U.S. Attorneys replaced at some time other than beginning of the Presidnet’s term:
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
Comment by Jake
Please, go away and read that report instead of only mentioning one fractional detail from the first page. Read the results of the report, fool.
And then stfu, because you’ve disproven your own assertion with this one simple report.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:53 amunbelievable,
and here are some names that you should research when it comes to corruption…
William Clinton-Democrat
Hillary Clinton-Democrat
Jack Murtha-Democrat
Nancy Pelosi-Democrat
Diane Feinstein-Democrat
Harry Reid-Democrat
William Jefferson-Democrat
the other side…
Gonzalez-Republican
George Bush-Republican
Delay-Republican
Hasterd-Republicann
Newt-Republican
Foley-Republican
just to name a few corrupt politicans from both sides.
try to take off the partisan glasses and you will find that most politicians are corrupt.
oh lastly, if you honestly believe that John Kerry would have been a better President than George W. Bush you have to give me some of what you are drinking because sometimes I like to be dilusional too.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:53 amJake’sBrainCellExplosion:
While the country is indeed polarized like I’ve not seen since the 1960’s — every one of those 54 replacements (whether for biting a topless dancer or moving up to federal judge) were based on POLITICS!!! Why is that so hard to understand?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:56 amI thought biting topless dancers was ok to do, my bad.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 amCaptain Kirk,
Do you use the same username on RedState? I’d love to read your posts over there where you claim that the Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats. And where you tell the posters that if they believe that GWB is a better president than John Kerry would have been, you’d like some of the kool-aid so you can be delusional too! I’m sure it’ll make for great reading.
Thanks.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:59 amWe are conservatives, and we have high values, and high standards. -Flush
You mean getting addicted to drugs and calling people faggot is a high value? That the culture of corruption is high standards? That Delay and Cunningham were upholders of values?
Your a sad old joke Limbaugh, really.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pmRepublicans have controlled the Presidency for more years, but Democrats have controlled Congress for far more years.
Please, you petty insults and dimb witted posts are a joke.
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:47 am
The Democratic Party was essentially two parties (Northern and Southern) merged together up until the 1960s. They then controlled Congress with a smaller majority up until the early 90s but through much of that time the White House was controlled by republicans.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pmNo, Rush, your audience isn’t that large.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pmbluefish,
I will go to there bluefish and make such statements and I will get the same vile, venom and hate from the right that I receive from the left.
the problem is that both sides think they are better than the other one and you both make it pesonal…
but follow me to RedState, I am going there now….
March 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pmJake says…
There were LEGITIMATE reasons for firing all these U.S. Attorneys as well.
Such as?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pmDo you have some evidence of Carol Lam stroking some immigrants dick while in court?
AFTER I’VE HAD DIFFERENT TYPES OF ETHNIC CUISINE, I SOMETIMES LIKE TO HAVE A SMALL TASTE OF MY POOPY. IT REALLY ABSORBS THE DIFFERENT FLAVORS.
BILL CLINTON ALSO HAS GONE POOPY.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pmI definitely want a system of government where no one acts immorally and no one is corrupt — I don’t think that is impossible — I also want one where there are no double standards. You would agree with that, right? –Jake
Indeed.
Now, if any of the current dismissals were for the purpose of obstruction of justice, that’s another matter. Do you think a pre-emptive Presidential pardon of Rove would legally be “obstruction of justiceâ€? –Jake
Hmm. Beats me, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not concerned with the legality as much as I’m concerned with the sorry-ness of it. If the President had to pre-emptively pardon Rove, that would be yet another bullet point on how corrupt it’s all become.
Hopefully this will teach ALL politicians to be less corrupt. We shall see.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pmSo, um, Rush, let’s look back at the crest of conservative popularity, you know, the height of the Rush Limbaugh(tm) conservative revolution. And let’s do the math. What percentage of this 72% of blithering idiots did you have on your side? About half of them, seems to me. If you boys had, say 60% of the electorate on your side, than 32% of that 72% were PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IN YOU.
In any case, you absolutely need about 23% to make it to 51. To keep winning elections, that is. That’s not 23 out of the 72, that’s 23 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Whom you desperately need. Whom you just told to go jump in the lake.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pmpine:
Have you read any of Rep. Issa (R-CA) letters to Lam setting forth a couple cases in particular?
Sean:
In my opinion, a Presidential pardon IS legal and therefore cannot be “obstruction of justice” — same as the replacement of U.S. Attorneys — if you want to make it ILLEGAL, then do so, but don’t change the rules after the fact in some big game of Gotcha!
March 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pmevery one of those 54 replacements (whether for biting a topless dancer or moving up to federal judge) were based on POLITICS!!! Why is that so hard to understand?
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
And you know this because…?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pmNow, if any of the current dismissals were for the purpose of obstruction of justice, that’s another matter. Do you think a pre-emptive Presidential pardon of Rove would legally be “obstruction of justice� –Jake
That would be unabashed man man love and corrupt cronyism.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pmRush needs Bush to put another AG that will allow him to illegally use drugs and abuse kids. It’s costing Rush alot of money to go overseas to molest little girls. Gonzales was a big help to the Texas Rangers who were never charged with molesting kids so they still do it. Finger Foley is now out of Rehab. and needs to get back to being a pervert and find some more boys to have sex with. Gonzales is really needed by some of the GOP and people like Rush. If Gonzales leaves these perverts might not be able to continue abusing kids while saying their Christians. Remember Fingers Foley had alot of people that knew what he was doing his staff, GOP elected officials and many more people that kept quiet and didn’t speak up to stop it. Keeping Gonzales will allow lying under oath to be legal and Libby can have those charges dropped and get back to work at the White House as now he’s unemployed. We need more criminals in the White House to help continue the crime wave Bush has set out to do.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pmme making it personal?
Yes.
did you read your post #79 to me?
After I wrote it, yes.
you made it personal and now you cry, like a good partisan, when someone else uses your same tactics…..
Cry? LOL. What kind of tone are you assuming? You didn’t notice that I’ve only used periods at the ends of sentances? That means normal tone. I’ve also explained my logical trail - emotional people generally lose the ability to do that because adrenalin suppressed higher thinking functions.
Clearly, I have destroyed your argument, exposed your real motives, and it is now you who projects with the crying. You’re busted and you are now pitching a temper tantrum (by the way - this sentance IS personal. See the difference)?
It is obvious that you bat for the left, it never fails. When someone blames the other side more than their own, it is obviously that they are partisan.
So, if a drunk driver killed your wife, mother, brother, or best friend -you would believe that the drunk driver is only 50% responsible? …crazy…
If you are going to play the numbers game, don’t forget that Democrats have controlled Congress for decades longer than Republicans have.
The last time they had control was 1994. That was 22 years ago. You really are this obssessed?
Republicans have controlled the Presidency for more years, but Democrats have controlled Congress for far more years.
Your point?
Please, you petty insults and dimb witted posts are a joke.
I made no insults - just pointed out the reality. It isn’t always to your liking, you know. But your response to that is obviously very weak. You’re now emotional, and I’m laughing because your actions simply validate my claim, and you don’t like that you’ve been busted…
i could careless whether you believe me or not when I say that I am a true Independent, not a fake Independent like you.
Wow… How utterly clever… LOL. Really, if this is the bets you can do? You should form your own Ignore List and put this blog on it. Clearly you can’t handle being here with peopel who think for themselves. LOL
When was the last time you voted Republican?
November 2006. For Govenor. His policies were better than his opponents.
I have voted Republican and Democrat in local, State and Federal elections.
I used to be a Republican. It’s how I know that you are one.
I don’t ascribe to a party or a silly ideology like you do, I ascribe to my personal beliefs and I vote for politicians that I believe agree with me.
Yet you keep demonstrating the opposite…
also, it is funny that you attack absolutism in your post and yet you point out with ABSOLUTE certainty that Republicans have a greater blame….
No I didn’t. Are you actually saying that the Republicans who controlled the whole show for 6 years do not have the greater blame? How did you pass third grade math?
I thought you said absolutism is a sign of religious whackos?!!
Show where I used the word “whackos” (it’s spelled w-a-c-k-o, actually. Whack means to hit)
here is a clue for you, you can’t say that absolutism is wrong, since with this statement you are making an absolute, right?
Wrong. Interesting taht you’re defening absolutism and further outing yourself as a Republican who came here to disrupt…
typical, just typical…did you think before you wrote your post?
As opposed to regugitating talking points like you? You sure are awfully defensive for someone professing to be innocent…. LOL
and don’t cry about making it personal since you did that long before I….
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:47 am
I can’t help it… I always cry when I laugh this hard…. LOL
I think it’s time for Scotty to beam you somewhere else.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#108 Captain Kirk
That’s pretty weak stuff. Instead of just posting a bunch of names, why don’t you tell us what it is they were accused of, whether or not they were indicted, whether or not they were convicted, and just for good measure you could tell us how much time and money was spent investigating some of these people without convicting them of anything (see: Whitewater).
And how did you miss Cunningham, Ney, and DeLay? Not to mention all the members of their congressional staff and associates who also got busted.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pmIn my opinion, a Presidential pardon IS legal and therefore cannot be “obstruction of justice†-Jake
Then what is a pardon good for if not to cloak corruption?
Don’t you have to do something wrong first to then get pardoned from? Libby obstructed justice and now just because someone can they will give this man a pardon.
Why do we even have laws?
You said you didn’t want corruption in politics and now you do an about face????
March 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pmand here are some names that you should research when it comes to corruption…
Why? You too lazy to do your own research. Funny how short your list is… Especially in comparision to the lengthy lists of corruption from the Right that are all over the place if you’re only willing to look.
try to take off the partisan glasses and you will find that most politicians are corrupt.
It’s because you are wearing them that you assume all others are. We aren’t. Reality just has a lineral bias.
oh lastly, if you honestly believe that John Kerry would have been a better President than George W. Bush you have to give me some of what you are drinking because sometimes I like to be dilusional too.
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Says the neocon here posing ans an Independent so he can get away with insulting teh Democrats… LOL. You aren’t fooling me and you know it…
March 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pmWilliam Clinton-Democrat
Hillary Clinton-Democrat
Jack Murtha-Democrat
Nancy Pelosi-Democrat
Diane Feinstein-Democrat
Harry Reid-Democrat
William Jefferson-Democrat
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 11:53 am
You have a legitimate argument w/ William Jefferson. Murtha’s corruption was decades ago. And the Clintons were hunted by the republicans the entire time they were in the White House and all they come up with is a lie about a BJ.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pmI was thinking the exact same thing. He admitted that his constant assault against a mythical “liberal media bias” as resulted in a true dominant “conservative media.” Probably jokes about it with his cigar buddies but let it slip out on his show. I wonder how he’ll back-peddle that one?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd now Jake we have a crowing cranium, FLush Dimbuld saying it’s more important to keep the incompetent and corrupt just so the conservatives (who he just claimed had high values) should keep low value people around to win elections?
Amazingly people will listen to this Orwellian garbage, “Yes Rush is right we have high values and we need to keep our corrupt and incompetent people in power because we have high values”
If people can’t see thru the doublespeak, then they deserve Rush and his culture of incompetency.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pmI will go to there bluefish and make such statements and I will get the same vile, venom and hate from the right that I receive from the left.
It is you who assigns tone. What does that say aboutyou?
Actually, I was neither vile nor hateful. Just because you don’t like the truth I pointed out doesn’t mean you can falsely vilify my remarks.
You’re a sad little man.
the problem is that both sides think they are better than the other one and you both make it pesonal…
No the problem is that you claim to think for everyone and that it gives you some right to come here and bash us. And then, when we defend ourselves, in our home, you shit all over the carpet and claim it is self-defense.
If you can’t handle being around people who think, you really should find a better use for your time.
but follow me to RedState, I am going there now….
Comment by Captain Kirk — March 30, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Good riddance!
March 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) can point to me a single Founding Father who wrote the Presidential pardon power was corrupt, in and of itself, please do so.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pmIn my opinion, a Presidential pardon IS legal and therefore cannot be “obstruction of justice†— same as the replacement of U.S. Attorneys — if you want to make it ILLEGAL, then do so, but don’t change the rules after the fact in some big game of Gotcha!
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Presidential pardons are in the Constitution. If you fire attorneys to obstruct justice, it’s a crime.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pmunbelievable,
#124…
so you know I am a Republican because you were a Republican once? wow…such logic, such great thinking, hold the phones, call the press, we have God in our mists….(of course pure and utter sarcasm)
please guy, you think you are great, you are not. you think you are smart, you are not, you think you are a quick witted person, you are not.
you extreme left wingers never fail…..
you were all once in the military…
none of you voted for Clinton…
you were all once Republicans…
do you realize that every single statement you made in your post has been said to me by hundreds of other left wingers, liberal Democrats like yourself…
try to be original, i may start taking you seriously, in the mean time keep up with the dimb witted posts, they make me laugh hard and show how desperate you are to prove you aren’t a partisan and that I am….
and so what if I am defending absolutism….what is it to you….
there are absolutes as much as there are things that are relative.
both exist….but keep posting your extreme liberal views, they only show how much of a partisan you are.
and tone…you mean to tell me that you “hear” tones when you read this thread? have you taken your medication lately?
now post again and amuse me son.
Obviously I hit a never when I told you that both parties are equally corrupt. You are too partisan to see it and too dishonest to admitted. Takke off the partisan glass you so much deny you don’t have and may start taking your silly posts seriously.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm#120 Jake
Have you read any of Rep. Issa (R-CA) letters to Lam setting forth a couple cases in particular?
Funny you should ask. I was wondering where Issa got an internal Border Patrol memo from 2003 that was doctored to look like it came out in 2004. Any ideas? And why is it that Issa was so incensed about Lam making big immigration busts and getting longer sentences for the perps instead of making a lot of little ones? It’s an interesting phrase that Sampson used in May of last year about planning to put her “on a very short leash.” That doesn’t suggest having her be aggressive in pursuing immigration cases. It sounds more like they want her to stay off of other cases. Like crooked GOP congressmen.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmA SUGGESTION: IGNORE THIS POSTER
#132 If anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) can point to me a single Founding Father who wrote the Presidential pardon power was corrupt, in and of itself, please do so.
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) can point to me a single Founding Father who wrote the Presidential pardon power was corrupt, in and of itself, please do so. Comment by Jake
Please, it’s the abuse of the pardon thats the problem, just like Georges abuse of executive signing statements. Why did Elliott Abrams get a pardon, so he could come back and do the same thing again? Huh? Why did B Sr. pardon a known drug dealer?
And to hell with your childish ignore list. Ignoring posts you can’t respond too due to some mythical list is immature.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pmJake - just go read the Constitution yourself so you can stop embarrassing yourself and annoying us.
Here’s a link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/ constitution.overview.html
March 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmunbelievable,
“…defending our shit…” wait, i thought you claimed that you aren’t partisan….by “our” shit you include yourself as a member of the left wing partisan site that you are on, right? and the left wing views that are posted on this thread, right? so much for unbelievable not being partisan.
what is sad is that he/she honestly believes what he posts.
ahhh…so easy to destroy the argument of partisan hacks…
thanks for playing…next
March 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pmhttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/cm/content/view/322/159/
March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pms sez:
We can’t, s…when we do, Dale swoops in and bleats about how no one can refute Jake’s arguments…thing is, when we then proceed to do so, Dale refuses to debate with us as well. ^_^
March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pmGood riddance!
Comment by unbelievable — March 30, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
yes, most insecure people love it when people that challenge their closed minded world view leave them alone….
such partisan fool.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“72% of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about,”
Well of course he’s right — but Oxycontin man’s problem is that they’ve figured out that the Bush administration and the Republican Party are run by even BIGGER blithering idiots.
Being smarter than the average American couch potato is setting the bar pretty low. Nonetheless, the modern conservative movement can’t clear it.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmPoor babies “can’t” ignore me — it works just fine when I ignore them.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmLimbaugh: Winning Elections More Important than Firing Gonzales…
On the other hand, it’s not like Rush’s admission is any sort of surprise……
March 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pmwhat is sad is that he/she honestly believes what he posts.
-Captain Kirk.
You got a crystal ball Cap’n? How do you know what you post is true and theirs isn’t? How do you know thru a screen that they are insecure?
Thing is you don’t. =)