Gonzales Vegas Guy Actinanass

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4">
While you guys like tossing around labels (republicans this and democrats that); and while neither of you seem to see the moral and political corruptness of ole Alberto, please get with me on this:


On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

The broad outlines of the hospital-room conflict have been reported previously, but without Comey's gripping detail of efforts by Card, who has left the White House, and Gonzales, now the attorney general. His account appears to present yet another challenge to the embattled Gonzales, who has strongly defended the surveillance program's legality and is embroiled in a battle with Congress over the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

It also marks the first public acknowledgment that the Justice Department found the original surveillance program illegal, more than two years after it began.

Gonzales, who has rejected lawmakers' call for his resignation, continued yesterday to play down his own role in the dismissals. He identified his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who announced his resignation Monday, as the aide most responsible for the firings.

"You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general," Gonzales said at the National Press Club. "The deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community, and he signed off on the names," he added.

Those comments appear to differ, at least in emphasis, from earlier remarks by Gonzales, who has previously laid much of the responsibility for the dismissals on his ex-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson. They stand in contrast to testimony and statements from McNulty, who has acknowledged signing off on the firings but has told Congress he was surprised when he heard about the effort.

The Justice Department and White House declined to comment in detail on Comey's testimony, citing internal discussions of classified activities.

The warrantless eavesdropping program was approved by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It allowed the NSA to monitor e-mails and telephone calls between the United States and overseas if one party was believed linked to terrorist groups. The program was revealed in late 2005; Gonzales announced in January that it had been replaced with an effort that would be supervised by a secret intelligence court.

The crisis in March 2004 stemmed from a review of the program by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which raised "concerns as to our ability to certify its legality," according to Comey's testimony. Ashcroft was briefed on the findings on March 4 and agreed that changes needed to be made, Comey said.

That afternoon, Ashcroft was rushed to George Washington University Hospital with a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis; on March 9, his gallbladder was removed. The standoff between Justice and White House officials came the next night, after Comey had refused to certify the surveillance program on the eve of its 45-day reauthorization deadline, he testified.

About 8 p.m. on March 10, Comey said that his security detail was driving him home when he received an urgent call from Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres, who had just received an anxious call from Ashcroft's wife, Janet. The White House -- possibly the president -- had called, and Card and Gonzales were on their way.

Furious, Comey said he ordered his security detail to turn the car toward the hospital, careening down Constitution Avenue. Comey said he raced up the stairs of the hospital with his staff, beating Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's room.

"I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that," Comey said, saying that Ashcroft "seemed pretty bad off."

Mueller, who also was rushing to the hospital, spoke by phone to the security detail protecting Ashcroft, ordering them not to allow Card or Gonzales to eject Comey from the hospital room.

Card and Gonzales arrived a few minutes later, with Gonzales holding an envelope that contained the executive order for the program. Comey said that, after listening to their entreaties, Ashcroft rebuffed the White House aides.

"He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me," Comey said. Then, he said, Ashcroft added: "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and pointed at Comey, who was appointed acting attorney general when Ashcroft fell ill.

Later, Card ordered an 11 p.m. meeting at the White House. But Comey said he told Card that he would not go on his own, pulling then-Solicitor General Theodore Olson from a dinner party to serve as witness to anything Card or Gonzales told him. "After the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present," Comey testified. "He replied, 'What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.' "

The next day, as terrorist bombs killed more than 200 commuters on rail lines in Madrid, the White House approved the executive order without any signature from the Justice Department certifying its legality. Comey responded by drafting his letter of resignation, effective the next day, March 12.

"I couldn't stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis," he said. "I just simply couldn't stay." Comey testified he was going to be joined in a mass resignation by some of the nation's top law enforcement officers: Ashcroft, Mueller, Ayres and Comey's own chief of staff.

Ayres persuaded Comey to delay his resignation, Comey testified. "Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me," he said.


</font size>[/b]
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
...theres no difference in this from harry reid making sure one of his senators is still alive so the democrats can keep the majority.

Its politics, and it sucks...

Understand this Que, nothing comes from us hating the Bush Administration. Its all about understanding both sides of the story. I have reasons to hate any politician on the face of this earth, Democrat or Republican. Hate clouds any rational thought about a situation. With all these conspiracy theories, protests, ect...What has it accomplished? We still have soldiers in Iraq fighting for a country thats divided *the US*. The sad thing about it, if everyone could put politics down for one summer, perhaps our troops would be back before 08. A United US will defeat any type of government, at any given time. Look up the history....
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Actinanass said:
...theres no difference in this from harry reid making sure one of his senators is still alive so the democrats can keep the majority.

LOL. You see everything in simpleton terms: democrat/republican. You see, if Alberto was a democrat, I would feel the same way about him as I do now. I wouldn't look to an example of what some other republican may or may not have done.

See if you can get it: it doesn't matter the political pursuasion. Crooks, opportunist, and those damaging to the Constitution come in ALL POLITICAL STRIPES. You don't protect them because of YOUR party affiliation.

Actinanass said:
Understand this Que, nothing comes from us hating the Bush Administration.
Bruh, I don't hate anyone. But your George Bush, and many of those around him, need to be the fuck out of office. This isn't personal; its about a president and some of his men running rough shod over the Constitution; misleading the public; and indulging in their own warped political sense of the world.

Good thing 08 will take care of itself; but what more damage will these idiots do in the meantime ???

Hint: GW and a lot of political-posturing Demoncrats are trying their best to fuck-up Black people with Immigration Reform that will result in fucking up the political gains we've made in this country since the 60's.

Chew on that for a while ... and Holla


QueEx
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
LOL. You see everything in simpleton terms: democrat/republican. You see, if Alberto was a democrat, I would feel the same way about him as I do now. I wouldn't look to an example of what some other republican may or may not have done.

See if you can get it: it doesn't matter the political pursuasion. Crooks, opportunist, and those damaging to the Constitution come in ALL POLITICAL STRIPES. You don't protect them because of YOUR party affiliation.


Bruh, I don't hate anyone. But your George Bush, and many of those around him, need to be the fuck out of office. This isn't personal; its about a president and some of his men running rough shod over the Constitution; misleading the public; and indulging in their own warped political sense of the world.

Good thing 08 will take care of itself; but what more damage will these idiots do in the meantime ???

Hint: GW and a lot of political-posturing Demoncrats are trying their best to fuck-up Black people with Immigration Reform that will result in fucking up the political gains we've made in this country since the 60's.

Chew on that for a while ... and Holla


QueEx

I think you have a misconception about me. My job is to show both sides of the argument. There's some things I can't stand about Bush *like him trying to be everyone friend in congress, lack of communicational skills, and not listening to Colin Powell*.

Think about this, what is more productive? Complaining about the current administration at every move, or unite and quit arguing about things that can't be changed *like foreign policy*. If congress would be like this "hell we made a mistake about Iraq, however, since we are there, lets try to make this thing work" Iraq would be a better place right now.

Honestly, I don't care about Alberto, Reid, or any other politician. I care about the troops, and my safety. Since all of the conspiracy theories haven't been proven, I'm taking the stance of not believing internet theories. So, basically, my only concern is this war, and taxes. Fuck illegal immigration, fuck abortion, fuck party lines, fuck all this anti-bush shit. Bottomline, I trust Bush more than I trust anybody else in the government.

Let me clarify that, I trust that Bush will do something he feel thats right. He 's not going to be swayed by the media, and fake polls. To me, that shows that he is a man of his word, unlike many other presidents we have witness.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
actinanass said:
I think you have a misconception about me. My job is to show both sides of the argument. There's some things I can't stand about Bush *like him trying to be everyone friend in congress, lack of communicational skills, and not listening to Colin Powell*.
I don't have a misconception of you; but I think you have a misconception of politics. I could have said worse, but you seem to be speaking from the heart so I won't be crass.

I don't know where you get the 'misconception' that GW wants to be everybody's friend but it is, a 'misconception.' On the other hand, there's nothing that says or requires him to be everybody's friend. A bit of honesty would be nice; but I don't want to be friends with any politician, unless, however, there's a benefit. But that divisive som-bitch with his 'my way or the highway' mentality doesn't know the meaning of friends -- unless its on his terms.


Actinanass said:
Think about this, what is more productive? Complaining about the current administration at every move, or unite and quit arguing about things that can't be changed *like foreign policy*. If congress would be like this "hell we made a mistake about Iraq, however, since we are there, lets try to make this thing work" Iraq would be a better place right now.
Don't confuse "debate" in whatever form for mere complaining. Had Congress more "Debate" on Iraq BEFORE the invasion, chances are, we wouldn't be in that hell hole today. Iraq IS BEING DEBATED now in Congress, and thats a good thing; finally, Congress is starting to do its JOB.

Don't be overly concerned about all the rhetoric flying around in Congress right now; its healthy. Now that the demoncrats have more power they can better challenge the repugnicans; in the end, compromise is more likely than not. Let's just hope that compromise is in all of our best interest.

Actinanass said:
Honestly, I don't care about Alberto, Reid, or any other politician. I care about the troops, and my safety. Since all of the conspiracy theories haven't been proven, I'm taking the stance of not believing internet theories. So, basically, my only concern is this war, and taxes. Fuck illegal immigration, fuck abortion, fuck party lines, fuck all this anti-bush shit. Bottomline, I trust Bush more than I trust anybody else in the government.

Let me clarify that, I trust that Bush will do something he feel thats right. He 's not going to be swayed by the media, and fake polls. To me, that shows that he is a man of his word, unlike many other presidents we have witness.
Scary thoughts. :puke:

To me, that shows that GW is a "my way' guy and will take us all down the damn drain with his stubborness. His only imagination is that, he's right.

QueEx
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
I don't have a misconception of you; but I think you have a misconception of politics. I could have said worse, but you seem to be speaking from the heart so I won't be crass.

I don't know where you get the 'misconception' that GW wants to be everybody's friend but it is, a 'misconception.' On the other hand, there's nothing that says or requires him to be everybody's friend. A bit of honesty would be nice; but I don't want to be friends with any politician, unless, however, there's a benefit. But that divisive som-bitch with his 'my way or the highway' mentality doesn't know the meaning of friends -- unless its on his terms.



Don't confuse "debate" in whatever form for mere complaining. Had Congress more "Debate" on Iraq BEFORE the invasion, chances are, we wouldn't be in
that hell hole today. Iraq IS BEING DEBATED now in Congress, and thats a good thing; finally, Congress is starting to do its JOB.

Don't be overly concerned about all the rhetoric flying around in Congress right now; its healthy. Now that the demoncrats have more power they can better challenge the repugnicans; in the end, compromise is more likely than not. Let's just hope that compromise is in all of our best interest.


Scary thoughts. :puke:

To me, that shows that GW is a "my way' guy and will take us all down the damn drain with his stubborness. His only imagination is that, he's right.

QueEx

1. I think the misconception of your thoughts of my politics are this, I use common sense, you use articles that lack common sense. Since I WAS a journalism major, I understand what articles are meant to establish. Its all in the lead, and the title. It is impossible to have an article that doesn't reflects a writer's personal view in some sort of a way. Its easy to believe that I have a misconception about politics if you only look at articles, but not the true issues.

2. If Bush was divisive, do you think he would just let the democrats paint this picture about him right now? Do you think he would allow the democrats to say whatever about him, whenever? You have to rewind back to 2000, when he got into office. If I was Bush, Tenet would of been gone on DAY ONE, I would of got rid of ALL US attorneys just like Clinton, and I would of take control of the immigration situation. Now if he would have done that, your argument would be valid. Funny that Clinton did all of this, but yet he wasn't divisive?

3. How so? Hillary, and the rest of the democrats had the same evidence that Bush had. How is it hard for you to see why this even happen in the first place? The only reason the democrats voted for this war is because it would have been political suicide if they didn't, and Saddam flashed out some wmd. Democrats go by polls and public opinion, over pure common sense.

This is why we are having this debate now, because there's a part of the American community that will always be anti war. Not to mention, ultra liberals who just hate Bush because Bush is....Bush. The Democrats think that this will make their political lives better.

4. What have the democrats done to make this country better in the last 40 years other than the civil rights act?

5. stubbornness*

*edits* you know back in the day, politics will end about a war, when we were in one. Too bad the democrats aren't MAN/WOMAN enough to put politics aside for the greater good of the country. This is a sad day in American history.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
actinanass said:
1. I think the misconception of your thoughts of my politics are this, I use common sense, you use articles that lack common sense. Since I WAS a journalism major, I understand what articles are meant to establish. Its all in the lead, and the title. It is impossible to have an article that doesn't reflects a writer's personal view in some sort of a way. Its easy to believe that I have a misconception about politics if you only look at articles, but not the true issues.
(a) Son, I studied a bit of journalism in undergrad; if fact, I was Editor-in-Chief of the college newspaper. So? I have a degree in Journalism. And?

(b) I'm going to show you how Misconceived you really are. I post articles on this board for several of reasons, sometimes: (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically. I DON'T POST ANY OF THEM, NECESSSARILY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHATS CONTAINED IN THEM!

So, while ya bullshittin, you were ALL WRONG! - Mr. Cleo. If you want to have a discussion with me, cool; I like that; on the other hand, stop trying to read people's minds -- they put Miss Cleo's ass in jail for that shit.


Actinanass said:
2. If Bush was divisive, do you think he would just let the democrats paint this picture about him right now? Do you think he would allow the democrats to say whatever about him, whenever? You have to rewind back to 2000, when he got into office.
I won't justify that nonsense with an answer. You're going to have to raise your level of discussion.

Actinanass said:
If I was Bush, Tenet would of been gone on DAY ONE, I would of got rid of ALL US attorneys just like Clinton, and I would of take control of the immigration situation. Now if he would have done that, your argument would be valid. Funny that Clinton did all of this, but yet he wasn't divisive?
And, had you done that, that would have been expected and the proximate norm. But, you don't fire political cronies because they won't trample on justice for your self-serving political reasons. Thats the issue with the U.S. Attorney scandal.


Actinanass said:
3. How so? Hillary, and the rest of the democrats had the same evidence that Bush had.
For the umpteenth damn time: Fuck the Democrats. Can you do better than that?


Actinanass said:
How is it hard for you to see why this [War In Iraq] even happen in the first place? The only reason the democrats voted for this war is because it would have been political suicide if they didn't, and Saddam flashed out some wmd. Democrats go by polls and public opinion, over pure common sense.
For once, we agree on something: "that the demoncrats voted for the Iraq War because it would hve been political suidice if the didn't" ... or at least thats what I believe some of them believed. Debate, however and perhaps, would have exposed more of the truth for what it was. Maybe then the American people, Demoncrats and Repugnants included, wouldn't have gotten Yellow-caked.

Actinanass said:
This is why we are having this debate now, because there's a part of the American community that will always be anti war. Not to mention, ultra liberals who just hate Bush because Bush is....Bush. The Democrats think that this will make their political lives better.
You're hopeless. You blame so-called liberals and demoncrats for everything -- just like some demoncrats and liberals blame repugnants and conservatives for everything. You must have spent about 10 seconds in that journalism class -- since the goal of journalism, supposedly, is search of truth. That must have been too difficult for you; you prefer to use and hide behind party labels while the truth flirts in front of your closed eyes in a teddy.

Actinanass said:
4. What have the democrats done to make this country better in the last 40 years other than the civil rights act?
Raise your level of discussion and we can discuss that. I'm not going to defend Demoncrats or Repugnants.


Actinanass said:
*edits* you know back in the day, politics will end about a war, when we were in one. Too bad the democrats aren't MAN/WOMAN enough to put politics aside for the greater good of the country. This is a sad day in American history.

My man, I don't think I've ever called someone on this board what I am about to call you now: SHEEP. Unlock your ass and, hopefully, your mind might follow. You sound like someone who has been politically "Indoctrinated". Come out young man; come out! Free your mind. Or, are you hiding under all that repugnant rhetoric because you're unable to, think freely for yourself ....

Please tell me you don't really believe all that reugnant shit you're talking; ... tell me ... you're just Acting An Ass ???

right?

QueEx
 
Last edited:

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
(a) Son, I studied a bit of journalism in undergrad; if fact, I was Editor-in-Chief of the college newspaper. So? I have a degree in Journalism. And?

(b) I'm going to show you how Misconceived you really are. I post articles on this board for several of reasons, sometimes: (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically. I DON'T POST ANY OF THEM, NECESSSARILY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHATS CONTAINED IN THEM!

So, while ya bullshittin, you were ALL WRONG! - Mr. Cleo. If you want to have a discussion with me, cool; I like that; on the other hand, stop trying to read people's minds -- they put Miss Cleo's ass in jail for that shit.



I won't justify that nonsense with an answer. You're going to have to raise your level of discussion.


And, had you done that, that would have been expected and the proximate norm. But, you don't fire political cronies because they won't trample on justice for your self-serving political reasons. Thats the issue with the U.S. Attorney scandal.



For the umpteenth damn time: Fuck the Democrats. Can you do better than that?



For once, we agree on something: "that the demoncrats voted for the Iraq War because it would hve been political suidice if the didn't" ... or at least thats what I believe some of them believed. Debate, however and perhaps, would have exposed more of the truth for what it was. Maybe then the American people, Demoncrats and Repugnants included, wouldn't have gotten Yellow-caked.


You're hopeless. You blame so-called liberals and demoncrats for everything -- just like some demoncrats and liberals blame repugnants and conservatives for everything. You must have spent about 10 seconds in that journalism class -- since the goal of journalism, supposedly, is search of truth. That must have been too difficult for you; you prefer to use and hide behind party labels while the truth flirts in front of your closed eyes in a teddy.


Raise your level of discussion and we can discuss that. I'm not going to defend Demoncrats or Repugnants.



My man, I don't think I've ever called someone on this board what I am about to call you now: SHEEP. Unlock your ass and, hopefully, your mind might follow. You sound like someone who has been politically "Indoctrinated". Come out young man; come out! Free your mind. Or, are you hiding under all that repugnant rhetoric because you're unable to, think freely for yourself ....

Please tell me you don't really believe all that reugnant shit you're talking; ... tell me ... you're just Acting An Ass ???

right?

QueEx

1. So, we are in an agreement that the media is 90% bullshit right?

2. If that was true, why do I always see articles that doesn't tell BOTH sides of the story. Seems that you just hate Bush without a true argument. Don't get it twisted, I'm only defending Bush because there's so much hate against him. My whole argument is this, Why give Bush all the hate when you had a democratic president that did nearly MORE shit than the current president, and he gets a free pass? It's not me liking Bush, its me being fair.

3. Other than Bush stealing the white house, and Al Gore not having the balls to fight for it?

4. I'm not reading your mind, I'm reading your actions. I thought actions speak louder than words?

5. A president can fire whoever in his administration, for any reason. Tell the truth Que, if this was Clinton, would this be an issue?

6. I'm not blaming Democrats for everything. I'm simply bringing their own shit out. Republicans have their own set of problems. However, the Republicans problems are always front, and center. The Democrats typically do not get the same coverage when they mess up in the media. Plus, last time I checked this is BLACKGIRLONLINE.COM, meaning mostly everyone on here are probably African-American. Majority of African Americans think that Democrats basically can do NO wrong. I'm merely challenging everybody to see another point of view of politics. This is what this forum is for right?

7. So when you can't defend your argument, you try to insult me? Thats what people do when they can't defend their own stance on a subject. Funny thing is, you started the debate...

8. Actinanass comes from my mama always calling me a smart ass. I always challenged the status quo. This is what I do, and I've been told I do it quite well.

9. I believe that I am thinking way more freely than majority of my peers, and possibly you as well que...
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Bruh,

Until you can speak without mentioning either Repugnants and Demoncrats; I am afraid I must end discussion with you. We can't make progress as long as you'er thinking like a simpleton.

Oh, maybe you've gotten away from what your mother called you, because right now you're not challenging anything, just acting Challenged.

QueEx
 
Last edited:

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
Bruh,

Until you can speak without mentioning either Repugnants and Demoncrats; I am afraid I must end discussion with you. We can't make progress as long as you'er thinking like a simpleton.

Oh, maybe you've gotten away from what your mother called you, because right now you're not challenging anything, just acting Challenged.

QueEx

dude fuck what you are saying... I understand that most of them are in it together, however, the only way to establish a clear argument for yourself, YOU HAVE TO USE THE POLITICAL PARTIES. The only reason we haven't made any progress is because I'm not following the status quo. Please, I'm begging you, to tell me WHY I SHOULD HATE BUSH? So I can challenge the notion to hate Bush. You haven't gave me a clear cut reason to believe what you are saying. I don't care about any articles because I know most of it is tainted anyway. I want your opinion, then the facts. Not so-called facts, and no opinion.

Plus, the fact that you have to insult me makes me think you really don't have a reason to not like any one. My whole point in this post was to show the bias between the media, a certain few in Washington. Clinton basically did the same thing Bush did, but Clinton gets a pass on majority of the scandals he were a part with. You can say that I'm a simpleton for stating the obvious, but hell common sense is common sense. It's very clear that the media do not want anything GOOD to come out of Bush being president. This is why you are able to get all these articles about how "corrupted" Bush and his peeps are. The fact is, ALL POLITICIANS have a little corruption in them. It should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Bottom line, I use the political labels just to identify which side is saying what. Do they always stand on a party basis, no. Majority of the time it is though. So using the POLITICAL labels make the whole job easier on MY end.

I figured you would want to end this debate due to lack of personal beliefs. Its cool though!!

:D :D :D
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
No, you won't get banned and you didn't beat a MOD. You continously showed your political immaturity and I just got tired of responding to it -- I didn't see any use continuing since you kept assuming things I never said i.e., hating Bush, etc., and responding to what YOU THOUGHT I said instead of what I said. Hard to have a discussion that way.

I don't know whether blackIpod was laughing at your immaturity or laughing with with it. I'll let him respond to that.

QueEx
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
No, you won't get banned and you didn't beat a MOD. You continously showed your political immaturity and I just got tired of responding to it -- I didn't see any use continuing since you kept assuming things I never said i.e., hating Bush, etc., and responding to what YOU THOUGHT I said instead of what I said. Hard to have a discussion that way.

I don't know whether blackIpod was laughing at your immaturity or laughing with with it. I'll let him respond to that.

QueEx


so I'm immature because I don't agree with you? Plus, how can I assume when you the one that made this post, and put ME on the title? Then insult me because I won't agree with everything you say. Come on man....seriously though.

Obviously, you made this post to try to change my mind, so when it didn't work out, you insult me.

However, you think I'm immature because we don't see eye to eye.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
QueEx said:
I post articles on this board for several of reasons, sometimes: (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically. I DON'T POST ANY OF THEM, NECESSSARILY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHATS CONTAINED IN THEM!

Actinanass said:
If that was true, why do I always see articles that doesn't tell BOTH sides of the story. Seems that you just hate Bush without a true argument. Don't get it twisted, I'm only defending Bush because there's so much hate against him. My whole argument is this, Why give Bush all the hate when you had a democratic president that did nearly MORE shit than the current president, and he gets a free pass? It's not me liking Bush, its me being fair.
Did I say anything about 'both sides of the story'? I do that sometimes too, but I said the articles are posted, (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically.

The idea is to encourage reading and thinking; and encouraging the reader to look carefully at opinion thats not reasonably supported by fact. Now, I don't give a shit about GW (I think he has gone a long way to fucking up foreign policy, etc), but if I post an article you think is biased against ole George, hit the article for its bias based on its faulty logic, etc. -- don't get angry with me or whoever else may have posted it. If there's something wrong, point it out; we might be in agreement and we might all learn something.

In other words, stop whinning about an article. Its not my opinion (unless I say I agree with it), its somebody else's opinion that may or may not be based on sound logic or fact.

Fair enough?

QueEx said:
... you don't fire political cronies because they won't trample on justice for your self-serving political reasons. Thats the issue with the U.S. Attorney scandal.

Actinanass said:
A president can fire whoever in his administration, for any reason. Tell the truth Que, if this was Clinton, would this be an issue?

Do you not see the issue here??? Politics aside, its wrong, if not illegal, for a president or his political appointees to insist that a U.S. Attorney prosecute his political enemies or be fired, and presumably to be replaced by someone who will do the dirty deed.

Without question, a president can fire all of the U.S. Attorneys, for NO reason; BUT, it raises a serious issue when there is a wrong or illegal motive for firing.
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
Did I say anything about 'both sides of the story'? I do that sometimes too, but I said the articles are posted, (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically.

The idea is to encourage reading and thinking; and encouraging the reader to look carefully at opinion thats not reasonably supported by fact. Now, I don't give a shit about GW (I think he has gone a long way to fucking up foreign policy, etc), but if I post an article you think is biased against ole George, hit the article for its bias based on its faulty logic, etc. -- don't get angry with me or whoever else may have posted it. If there's something wrong, point it out; we might be in agreement and we might all learn something.

In other words, stop whinning about an article. Its not my opinion (unless I say I agree with it), its somebody else's opinion that may or may not be based on sound logic or fact.

Fair enough?





Do you not see the issue here??? Politics aside, its wrong, if not illegal, for a president or his political appointees to insist that a U.S. Attorney prosecute his political enemies or be fired, and presumably to be replaced by someone who will do the dirty deed.

Without question, a president can fire all of the U.S. Attorneys, for NO reason; BUT, it raises a serious issue when there is a wrong or illegal motive for firing.


For one, if you didn't care about what Bush did, you wouldn't say "i think i fucked up foreign policy". You just gave yourself away on that one. Nice try though...

The point about him firing PEOPLE HE HIRED. Dude Clinton did the same thing, so whats the fucking difference. Again, you look like a political bigot when you say such things. Thus, making my assumption about you come true. Plus, do I think its wrong, yea. I mean they are playing with people lives, however, they have this on their resume *I WORKED UNDER THE BUSH/CLINTON ADMINISTRATION*, so I think they have some type of job security in the long run....

I understand that you just trying to spark debate, but when someone challenge you in a debate instead of just simply follow you, you become defensive. Thus, you really cannot argue your points because you discredit my beliefs. Making you a political bigot once again.

Dude, I won this debate one way or the other... Just give up man!

BTW, I thought editor-in-chiefs suppose to spell well....
 

Makeherhappy

Potential Star
Registered
QueEx said:
Did I say anything about 'both sides of the story'? I do that sometimes too, but I said the articles are posted, (1) to evoke thought; (2) to evoke comment; (3) to show the ridiculous; (4) to examine truth; and (5) to encourage Brothers and Sisters to read, critically.

Que, thanks for the knowledge.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Actinanass said:
Dude, I won this debate one way or the other... Just give up man!

LOL. Man, you're killing me!

What did you win? - and did it have anything at all to do with the subject of this thread ?

QueEx
 
Top