TimmySmith Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 How about because this whole thing is a fishing expedition and nothing more. If they had even the faintest shred of physical evidence of a crime having been committed then I'd agree with you. Similarly to the police officer who pulls a car over solely to try and find something to arrest the occupants on, compared to the one who pulls a car over for speeding THEN asks to search the car.It is also a fairly obvious attempt (at least to those paying attention) by congress to up their approval rating at the expense of the president. The minute they stop these distracting attacks on the white house they immediately expose themselves as a body that cannot seem to pass any meaningful legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 That is not true Jbooma. He can not fire someone from the Justice department because he doesn't want an investigation.That is obstruction of justice in the most obvious terms, and it is illegal. if that is the case then let the courts decide that and not congress i agree the blow job hearing was a complete waste of time and money, i am not a big fan in holding people to a specific level because of their personal life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It is also a fairly obvious attempt (at least to those paying attention) by congress to up their approval rating at the expense of the president. The minute they stop these distracting attacks on the white house they immediately expose themselves as a body that cannot seem to pass any meaningful legislation. You might have a point, but Congresses approval numbers are even lower than Bush's right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 MSF, considering you claim to support a return to a more ideal form of American government and the Republic, it is amazing when I see you support the actions of the current POTUS. The President is not above and beyond Congress or the American people, and yet, this is exactly how the current administration behaves. In fact, NO branch of office, including Congress, is beyond reproach by its constituents, even though office holders and some of their supporters would like for us to believe that as well. The thing you're missing Baculus, is that I have no faith in any portion of the government at this point in time. Congress, the Judiciary, the Presidency, etc... There is no part of the government I have any faith in. On this particular topic, I think the President is within his rights to tell Congress to "Go To Hell". If they had even a single piece of hard evidence of a crime, I'd disagree with the President, but I have never seen one. Until some portion of the government returns to its Constitutionally prescribed limitations, none of them are worth supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 So basically you are saying that if a president can stall enough and assert executive priviledge enough to cloud an issue they can get away with a crime...the presidency should be transparent enough that issues like this shouldn't come to light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 So basically you are saying that if a president can stall enough and assert executive priviledge enough to cloud an issue they can get away with a crime...the presidency should be transparent enough that issues like this shouldn't come to light... What I'm saying is that there is NOBODY in the government who has the moral superiority and cleanliness to be throwing stones at anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 What I'm saying is that there is NOBODY in the government who has the moral superiority and cleanliness to be throwing stones at anyone else. Yeah, but Bush is the president of the United States. Shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Yeah, but Bush is the president of the United States. Shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Not so far as I'm concerned. They all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Every single one of them has thrown that oath out the window and acted against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. NONE of them have any level of moral high ground left so far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Not so far as I'm concerned. They all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Every single one of them has thrown that oath out the window and acted against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. NONE of them have any level of moral high ground left so far as I'm concerned. Oh come on. Do you for one second believe that a senator's lie or hiding of the thuth means as much as if the president lied or hid thruths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Oh come on. Do you for one second believe that a senator's lie or hiding of the thuth means as much as if the president lied or hid thruths? Personally, I believe that the moment any elected official breaks the oath they take, they lose any moral high ground they've ever had without any ability to ever get it back. Regardless of whether we're talking about a Town Selectman or the POTUS. Yes, the potential results of the President's lies may be larger, but the fact that they both lied makes them equally worthless in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The thing you're missing Baculus, is that I have no faith in any portion of the government at this point in time. Congress, the Judiciary, the Presidency, etc... There is no part of the government I have any faith in. On this particular topic, I think the President is within his rights to tell Congress to "Go To Hell". If they had even a single piece of hard evidence of a crime, I'd disagree with the President, but I have never seen one. Until some portion of the government returns to its Constitutionally prescribed limitations, none of them are worth supporting. See, this is where you are wrong. Congress is totally within its power to subpoena any executive official for investigatory purposes within its lawmaking powers. So, Bush is NOT within his rights as president to tell them to go to hell. Edit: just to add, even Bush knows if those goes to the courts, he loses. He is just hoping that he can get out of office before it gets to the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 See, this is where you are wrong. Congress is totally within its power to subpoena any executive official for investigatory purposes within its lawmaking powers. So, Bush is NOT within his rights as president to tell them to go to hell.Edit: just to add, even Bush knows if those goes to the courts, he loses. He is just hoping that he can get out of office before it gets to the courts. It was my understanding that Congress had to have at least some form of probable cause to issue the subpeonas. If they have anything concrete that would meet the requirements of probably cause, I've never heard tell of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It was my understanding that Congress had to have at least some form of probable cause to issue the subpeonas. If they have anything concrete that would meet the requirements of probably cause, I've never heard tell of it. Ok, then your understanding is wrong. Congress does not need probable cause. Congress can investigate any executive officer or department that is within its legislative powers. So, once again, this is where you have gone awry. Bush and the administration know they lose this one. They are invoking "executive privilege" but Congress wants to know why? Executive privilege can be invoked for issues of national security and classified information. But, the US Attorneys does not fall within this realm of classified information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ok, then your understanding is wrong. Congress does not need probable cause. Congress can investigate any executive officer or department that is within its legislative powers. So, once again, this is where you have gone awry. Then I would suggest that's something which needs to be changed. I'll have to try and remember that when we're re-writing a new Constitution after the revolution that I truthfully think is coming in this country within the next 30-40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Then I would suggest that's something which needs to be changed. I'll have to try and remember that when we're re-writing a new Constitution after the revolution that I truthfully think is coming in this country within the next 30-40 years. whatever. its a perfectly acceptable part of checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 its a perfectly acceptable part of checks and balances. It may be perfectly acceptable to you, but it's something I'm totally against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It may be perfectly acceptable to you, but it's something I'm totally against. Why? What is wrong with checks and balances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Kind of like spending $50million dollars to investigate a blow job huh. . . :laugh: If nothing else, you know how to break things down into layman's terms Chom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Why? What is wrong with checks and balances? Checks and balances are fine. The idea that Congress can simply go on fishing expeditions into any area of the Executive Branch they want without any evidence is what I'm against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Checks and balances are fine. The idea that Congress can simply go on fishing expeditions into any area of the Executive Branch they want without any evidence is what I'm against. i'm willing to bet you didn't mind ken starr digging up monica lewinski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Checks and balances are fine. The idea that Congress can simply go on fishing expeditions into any area of the Executive Branch they want without any evidence is what I'm against. You have a point. But when looking at this admin.Nothing is just a fishing expedition. By saying their people can only talk in private and not under oath is like hanging a sign outside the White House say "We've been lying a lot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 History will judge him as the dictator he believes he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 You have a point. But when looking at this admin.Nothing is just a fishing expedition. By saying their people can only talk in private and not under oath is like hanging a sign outside the White House say "We've been lying a lot". especially b/c it comes on the heels of scooter getting convicted for lying under oath. i like how they say that they can "testify" but not under oath and not in public, and not with a transcript. I'm not sure the defiintion of "testify" but i'm pretty sure it has something to do with being under oath and on the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 i'm willing to bet you didn't mind ken starr digging up monica lewinski On a personal level I believe he sullied the Office of the President and the Oval Office itself in a way that can never be exorcised. Among the reasons I could never have any amount of respect for his wife is the fact that she didn't castrate him and divorce him immediately. My biggest problem was that he lied about it. If he'd have just admitted it up front we probably could have saved the American public the investigations and the needless impeachment proceedings. You have a point. But when looking at this admin.Nothing is just a fishing expedition. By saying their people can only talk in private and not under oath is like hanging a sign outside the White House say "We've been lying a lot". When it comes to ANY elected official the same claim can be made. Come on and get real on that. If you really believe that President Bush has that much more to hide than any of his predicessors, I think you're completely fooling yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 On a personal level I believe he sullied the Office of the President and the Oval Office itself in a way that can never be exorcised. Among the reasons I could never have any amount of respect for his wife is the fact that she didn't castrate him and divorce him immediately. My biggest problem was that he lied about it. If he'd have just admitted it up front we probably could have saved the American public the investigations and the needless impeachment proceedings. Well, Clinton wasnt even investigated for having sex in the oval office, THAT was a fishing expedition. That was something that was outside of Congress' investigatory power because I'm pretty sure that they can't legislate the president's sex life. by the way, you are now actually disappointed in someone because they forgave? what planet are you from? When it comes to ANY elected official the same claim can be made. Come on and get real on that. If you really believe that President Bush has that much more to hide than any of his predicessors, I think you're completely fooling yourself. I'd disagree with this too. I TRULY believe that this administration has been an assault on the Constitution that we have never seen. Most of it has been done behind closed doors b/c the Republican Congress (pre-2006) was willing to turn a blind eye so long as "one of theirs" was in office. But what this administration has done is much seedier than any sex scandal or anything like that. It has been an assault on Americans' rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.