Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Attorney Issue (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=16654)

IntheNet 03-19-2007 10:21 AM

Attorney Issue
 
If there is already a thread on this topic my deepest apologies...But I have a question...

Why is it somehow okay and a none-issue for President Bill Clinton to fire ALL (ninety-three) the US Attorneys in 1993 but if President Bush fires EIGHT he is somehow wrong?

Perhaps some liberal lefty can weigh in with an answer; I can't understand this latest Democrat smear...

CKFresh 03-19-2007 11:33 AM

Quote:

Why is it somehow okay and a none-issue for President Bill Clinton to fire ALL (ninety-three) the US Attorneys in 1993 but if President Bush fires EIGHT he is somehow wrong?
Cite the reasons they were fired and we can have a conversation. The eight that Bush had fired were for political reasons as opposed to job preformance.

IntheNet 03-19-2007 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241004)
Cite the reasons they were fired and we can have a conversation.

Does it matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241004)
The eight that Bush had fired were for political reasons as opposed to job preformance.

They are political appointees! They serve at the pleasure of the president. The president does not legally have to have a reason for firing them.

CKFresh 03-19-2007 12:14 PM

Quote:

Does it matter?
I don't know. Does it matter if you are fired for simply being African American? Or what about fired for your religious beliefs?

Yes, it matters why people are fired.

Quote:

They are political appointees! They serve at the pleasure of the president. The president does not legally have to have a reason for firing them.
Oh I'm sorry. I guess political allegence is more important than competency and job preformance. <--- This is the way of the republican party. As long as you mention Jesus and never question the president, you are a good republican. Forget your preformance, all they want is a "yes man" in every position.

If it is no big deal, tell me why Gonzales is apologizing and admitting to mistakes? Why is he not saying, "we can fire whoever we want..." ???

IntheNet 03-19-2007 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241007)
I don't know. Does it matter if you are fired for simply being African American? Or what about fired for your religious beliefs?
Yes, it matters why people are fired.

I agree, but a political appointee has a slightly different employment contract as a regular government worker... go and check if you disbelieve me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241007)
Oh I'm sorry. I guess political allegence is more important than competency and job preformance. ...

THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES! Given jobs for their help with campaign! Political allegiance is key! Nobody is denying that!

What part of "serving at the pleasure of the president" is difficult to understand? It is simply that; POLITICAL APPOINTEES can be fired for any reason at any time. There are political appointees in every branch of government at all levels. And they are routinely dismissed for no reason. It seems the Dems just discovered this fact. And it is the height of hypocrisy to accept that Clinton terminated employ of ALL his attorneys, including one that was investigating Democrat Rostenkowski at the time, yet question the eight (8) that were dismissed.

CKFresh 03-19-2007 12:40 PM

"Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17688221/

Why would he say this if it didn't matter "why" they were fired?

catman 03-19-2007 01:07 PM

Fresh, how can anyone justify the removal of all of the US attorneys and then call the firing of 8 "political"?

CKFresh 03-19-2007 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 241020)
Fresh, how can anyone justify the removal of all of the US attorneys and then call the firing of 8 "political"?

I don't know, why did Gonzales call it a mistake? Why did he lie about the reasoning? Look within your own party to find the hypocrisy. If Clinton made a mistake and it was done inproperly, I'm sure the republican attack machine would have been able to capitalize. You guys are much better at making people pay for mistakes than we are. Gonzales admitted that things were done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. Don't look at me, look to the people who have admitted failure.

DETMURDS 03-19-2007 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 240998)
If there is already a thread on this topic my deepest apologies...But I have a question...

Why is it somehow okay and a none-issue for President Bill Clinton to fire ALL (ninety-three) the US Attorneys in 1993 but if President Bush fires EIGHT he is somehow wrong?

Perhaps some liberal lefty can weigh in with an answer; I can't understand this latest Democrat smear...

The big issue is, why DID Clinton fire them all. The truth in that matter is the real eye popper!

IntheNet 03-19-2007 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DETMURDS (Post 241038)
The big issue is, why DID Clinton fire them all. The truth in that matter is the real eye popper!

I agree DETMURDS! Democrat hyocrisy is legendary!

Consider Watergate! Democrats all mad at Nixon because of a break in at Dem headquarters and official documents stolen. Watergate becomes the story of the 20th Century! Yet Sandy Burglar steals official documents on behalf of Clinton from NARA several times and destroys them and he is given a slap on the wrist and it is a big none-story!

The parallels between the Watergate story and the Sandy Burglar story are amazing! And it shows Democrat hypocrisy!

CKFresh 03-19-2007 01:59 PM

Quote:

on behalf of Clinton
Prove it....

Quote:

The big issue is, why DID Clinton fire them all.
Please enlighten us and provide a legit source...

DETMURDS 03-19-2007 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 241040)
I agree DETMURDS! Democrat hyocrisy is legendary!

Consider Watergate! Democrats all mad at Nixon because of a break in at Dem headquarters and official documents stolen. Watergate becomes the story of the 20th Century! Yet Sandy Burglar steals official documents on behalf of Clinton from NARA several times and destroys them and he is given a slap on the wrist and it is a big none-story!

The parallels between the Watergate story and the Sandy Burglar story are amazing! And it shows Democrat hypocrisy!

Or how about the way the Clintons raped and pilfered the White House before they left,...don't hear too much of that in this society's left wing media.

IntheNet 03-19-2007 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DETMURDS (Post 241053)
Or how about the way the Clintons raped and pilfered the White House before they left,...don't hear too much of that in this society's left wing media.

On the flip side if Hillary wins we get the White House furniture back she earlier stole!

:lol:

CKFresh 03-19-2007 02:13 PM

So, no one can prove that Berger did anything "on Clinton's behalf," or why CLinton fired the lawyers? Can you provide proof on the funiture that "she earlier stole!"

No of course not. That's why the media doesn't report these things. Because they are conspiracy theories by extremist on the right wing with nothing to substantiate the claims.

IntheNet 03-19-2007 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241057)
So, no one can prove that Berger did anything "on Clinton's behalf..." .

Before I even respond to that, are you aware of Sandy's position in the government at the time of this incident and who he worked for?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

CKFresh 03-19-2007 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 241061)
Before I even respond to that, are you aware of Sandy's position in the government at the time of this incident and who he worked for?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Oh, I see, then Scooter Libby lied UNDER OATH on Dick Cheney's behalf? Hmmm....

Again, prove it...

IntheNet 03-19-2007 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241062)
Again, prove it...

Prove what? Sandy already admitted stealing docs from NARA and these classified docs were of relevance to the 9/11 Commission and records relating to the Clinton Administration. You think he was doing this on his own behalf?

CKFresh 03-19-2007 02:40 PM

Quote:

Prove what? Sandy already admitted stealing docs from NARA and these classified docs were of relevance to the 9/11 Commission and records relating to the Clinton Administration. You think he was doing this on his own behalf?
Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it's what you can prove. If you can't prove that Clinton was involved, you might as well stop talking about it.

CKFresh 03-19-2007 03:13 PM

Thank you....

DETMURDS 03-19-2007 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241065)
Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it's what you can prove. If you can't prove that Clinton was involved, you might as well stop talking about it.

Can you prove in without linking to some left wing website? Can you prove it at all period?

CKFresh 03-19-2007 03:35 PM

Prove what?

DETMURDS 03-19-2007 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241079)
Prove what?

Anything you might say! For example, you go to church every week, or you haven't since you were 14 years old.

CKFresh 03-19-2007 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DETMURDS (Post 241099)
Anything you might say! For example, you go to church every week, or you haven't since you were 14 years old.

Yeah, go back to that thread. I can provide you with many formsa of proof if you'd like. Would you like me to send you the video of my confirmation into the Catholic Church? Or how about the email address of my priest? I will have to look that up, but he knows my name and can tell you I go to church nearly every week.

catman 03-20-2007 01:18 AM

Fresh, I still want to know how you can justify Mr. Clinton's removal of all of the US Attorneys, not to mention the entire White House staff and the entire Travel Office staff as well, and yet call the firing of 8 US Attorneys a political ploy.
Don't say AG Gonzalez said it was a mistake, we've all heard that. I want to know how you can justify it.

CKFresh 03-20-2007 10:12 AM

I don't know anything about Clinton's firings. I don't justify it or condemn it. If I see information that his firings were done for political reasons, I will condemn it. As I said earlier, the republicans are very good at calling people out for mistakes and political moves. I have a feeling if there was any story to the Clinton firings, he would have been tarred and feathered, or at least been held accountable by the conservative media (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity).

CKFresh 03-20-2007 10:38 AM

Since I know you won't do the research, here is a link that points out the difference between the Clinton situation and the current one.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/15/...eral_media.php

CKFresh 03-20-2007 10:42 AM

Clinton fired the ENTIRE group, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals - showing no favoritism.

IntheNet 03-20-2007 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241201)
Clinton fired the ENTIRE group, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals - showing no favoritism.

Reno wanted partisan Democrat prosecutors and nobody held over from Reagan/Bush administration... if you think otherwise you are just ignorant.

CKFresh 03-20-2007 11:11 AM

As I said before, why did no one call for Reno's resignation? Why was there no uproar? Why is Gonzales admitting to mistakes, when no one even questioned Reno at the time....

Read the link I provided, and you will realize they are not the same situation.

IntheNet 03-20-2007 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241007)
... tell me why Gonzales is apologizing and admitting to mistakes...

Simply because Attorney General has looked into issue and found areas that need to be addressed. Does that mean attorneys in question were dismissed illegally? No. We've already explained that to you...several times in fact.

Continued questioning on this issue is simply Democrat diarrhea that you espouse.

Attorney General Gonzales has the legal best interest of the nation at heart, as any Attorney General should; so much so he just received the full endorsement of the President.

Sorry lefties... find another issue to attempt to throw mud!

CKFresh 03-20-2007 12:05 PM

Quote:

Does that mean attorneys in question were dismissed illegally? No. We've already explained that to you...several times in fact.
Did I say it was illegal?

catman 03-20-2007 12:21 PM

No, but your criticism of it as a "political ploy" makes it sound as though you do not approve.
Again, Mr. Clinton fired all of the prosecutors, regardless of their abilities or political affiliations. President Bush has had 8 removed that he did not approve of. Call it what you want, but it looks like a "performance" issue to me.

CKFresh 03-20-2007 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 241219)
No, but your criticism of it as a "political ploy" makes it sound as though you do not approve.
Again, Mr. Clinton fired all of the prosecutors, regardless of their abilities or political affiliations. President Bush has had 8 removed that he did not approve of. Call it what you want, but it looks like a "performance" issue to me.

It may look like that, but the Attorney General admits it was based on political reasons and not performance. So it may look like that, but your opinion is wrong. The emails they have released specifically say, "people loyal to the president," and things about not questioning his policies.

Catman, I can't believe you think it is right to have a group of government officials who NEVER question the president's policies. Surely you believe a diverse group of opinions is a good thing.

IntheNet 03-20-2007 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241223)
Catman, I can't believe you think it is right to have a group of government officials who NEVER question the president's policies.

THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES! Have you missed that fact completely?

catman 03-20-2007 12:49 PM

Surely it is Fresh, but I'm comparing the performance-based firings here with the politically based firings Mr. Clinton did.
I had no problem with Mr. Clinton wanting "his" people in place, but the media is being ridiculous in their criticism of Bush's firings of these 8 attorneys.
Also, I have not said I disapprove of diverse opinions, but look at the example of Mr. Clinton's group. He did not keep many "hold-overs" from previous administrations. He did not approve of "diverse" opinions, it appears. And you still back him?

CKFresh 03-20-2007 12:50 PM

Quote:

performance-based firings
Have you read anything about this catman? GONZALES HAS ADMITTED THAT THESE WERE POLITICALLY BASED, not PERFORMANCE.

catman 03-20-2007 12:57 PM

They would not have happened unless the performance was not up to standards.
Again, Mr. Clinton fired all of the attorneys and you still back him? His firings were completely politically based, Fresh. Don't kid yourself.
Sorry, but you are wrong here.

CKFresh 03-20-2007 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 241233)
They would not have happened unless the performance was not up to standards.
Again, Mr. Clinton fired all of the attorneys and you still back him? His firings were completely politically based, Fresh. Don't kid yourself.
Sorry, but you are wrong here.

So do you just ignore the truth of the matter. Please read an article about this story. THEY WERE ONLY POLITICAL. THAT IS WHY GONZALES IS APOLOGIZING!

IntheNet 03-20-2007 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 241233)
His firings were completely politically based, Fresh. Don't kid yourself.Sorry, but you are wrong here.

catman... Let him go... he'll keep digging... he hasn't yet learned the hole theory!

Bush is not going to pull his support of the Attorney General nor should he... the Dems are on a fishing expedition...

catman 03-20-2007 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 241235)
So do you just ignore the truth of the matter. Please read an article about this story. THEY WERE ONLY POLITICAL. THAT IS WHY GONZALES IS APOLOGIZING!

Then where is the apology from Mr. Clinton? Sorry Fresh, but these firings would not have happened had the attorneys done their jobs properly. They brought their politics into the courtroom with them and were removed from their positions. They are whining like little school-children about it. Is it because they aren't good enough to get on with a decent law firm? Or is it because they just want to be on TV?
Either way, if they were decent lawyers, they would get a position in which they would make far more money than they were as US Attorneys. The Government doesn't pay as much as private practice can.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.