| Mar 31, 2007 @ 11:07 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
please someone try to explain to me or gimme a link to a non partisian site concerning this justice dept mess ...i have no clue whats going on with it ...see working 70 hrs a week tends to keep me in the dark ...but wow the news just won't shut up but no one seems to get into any details . help guys ...
|
|
  |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 11:10 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
Here's one:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/
|
| |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 11:10 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
Gone_Feral
Posts: 194
|
The President let some people go. According to the law, his actions were within his powers. Dems don't like the President. Dems make a big deal about the firings because they can.
That's about it.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 11:13 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
Not hardly Feral.
Irish, you can get the entire Senate hearing off the CSPAN webpage.
|
| |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 11:15 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
thanks east ..little left slanted imo but still quite helpful
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 12:05 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
There's a ton of excerpts from the Senate hearings with Sampson turning up on Youtube under a search: "Sampson"
Some are short, and some are quite long, but the questioning is done by both dems and repubs.
You can at least listen to what was actually said and make up your own mind...
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 1:59 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
steveemac
Posts: 2,336
|
ok i need a little non-partisan help
Here? yeah, right... 
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 2:27 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
Being an independent, I have yet to see ANY non-partisan discussion. When one side is right, the other side resorts to name calling and slander on the issue. That goes for democrats and republicans. The key is to listen to what is actually said, and make your decisions yourself. If an article appears slanted, take what the true facts are, and discard the rest. The facts are the same in every story, the trick is to look at how each side portrays those facts. Everyone has their own adapted version of the truth, as is seen with this issue.
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 4:20 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
acslim
Posts: 372
|
what Feral said
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 8:15 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,130
|
Not hardly Feral
Actually he is right on the money.
S
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 9:36 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
actualy after reading a bit yes feral seems right on ...a employer can fire anyone at anytime
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 9:45 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
From Marty Kaplan, a professor at the Annenberg School and part-time (liberal) political radio commentator:
The oddest role reversal has occurred in the culture wars: we have switched sides. Those on the right -- the supposed defenders of moral absolutes, eternal truths and personal responsibility -- are now singing the postmodern anthem, "Everything is political." Those on the left -- long denounced by the right for secularism, relativism and moral decay -- are now saying that truth is more than merely "my truth," that the rule of law is more than some arbitrary social construction, and that people should be held accountable for their actions.
Who would have thunk it?
Example: the Administration's defense of its firing of US Attorneys. Their argument has two pillars. One: Butt out -- this is politics, these are political appointments, and we have the pleasure of exercising our power. Two: Everyone does it. The first sounds like something you might learn from Nietzsche or Dostoevsky, but surely not in ethics class at Regent University, alma mater of Fifth-pleader Monica Goodling. The second -- "But Bill Clinton did it, too!" -- is hardly the kind of moral warrant that you'd expect conservative values vigilantes to invoke.
By contrast, it's supposedly permissive progressives who want prosecutors to weigh the evidence, and to keep the political hacks' thumbs off the scales of justice. It's the liberals, not the conservatives, trying to conserve the tradition of prosecutorial independence. It's the left, not the right, rejecting situation ethics and demanding personal accountability.
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:04 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
irish
As you read this remember that just because it makes the Democrats behavior look evil doesn't necessarily mean it is a partisan point of view. Consider that maybe they really are behaving evilly and that this is an accurate rendition of the facts.
The US Department of Justice (Headed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) fired some US Attorneys. There are 93 of these US attorneys and they report to Alberto Gonzales who in turn reports to President Bush.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of government created by the Constitution. President Bush is the head of the Executive Branch and has the sole authority to make any decisions he wants as to what that branch does provided it is consistent with the law.
The law on this subject is completely clear. The President (and therefore Alberto Gonzales) has the authority to fire any US Attorney any time he wishes, and for any reason he wishes.
The law states "Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."
Presidents have commonly exercised this right including most recently, President Clinton, who fired ALL 93 US Attorneys while HE was President (of course there was not a word of complaint from any Democrats when he did that because they are only interested in political attacks and couldn't care less about the fact that we are involved in a war and the damage they do to this country while they trump up this outrageous BS against the Commander in Chief).
The Democrats are going on a fishing expedition to try to drag the Executive Branch -- over which they have no authority -- through the mud as if it had done something wrong. They are using a tactic they have used before. They cannot say what laws were broken (since they know there weren't any) so what they do is to subpoena members of the Executive branch to force them to testify before their kangaroo court, hoping that they can trap them on some kind of UNRELATED issue and find something -- anything -- no matter how irrelevant or trivial to be able to say "AH HA!!! SEE!!! Bush is corrupt and arrogant and in total disregard of the law! Impeach him!"
While this process is going on, they know that the constant drumming and media coverage of these Democrat Congress members mercilessly drilling innocent employees of the Executive Branch will make it LOOK to uninformed people like they did something wrong.
That's called a fishing expedition and the Democrats love using this kind of Marxist tactic. It's called McCarthyism.
This is one episode in a disturbing trend in which the Democrats have been by attempting to usurp the powers of the Executive Branch in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental concept of separation of powers. Most notably, they have been attempting to infringe on the President's clear Constitutional right as Commander in Chief to conduct the war in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:16 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
That's called a fishing expedition and the Democrats love using this kind of Marxist tactic. It's called McCarthyism.
You're mixing your metaphors once again. Joseph McCarthy was a rabid (and drunk) anti-Communist.
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:18 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
Thanks for the attempted English class lesson, but they both used the same tactics the Democrats are using and therefore have that in common. So it is not a mixed metaphor in the respect in which it is used.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:34 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
i have actually done quite a bit of research ...all it seems to me is yes another excuse for the democrats to whine bitch and groan
at my job I am a ultimate athourity ..im #3 in charge of the company i only answer to the coo and ceo
if i fire someone ...it is with good reason and i don't expect the ersons family demands my head
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:42 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
The law is clear.
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
U.S. Code collection
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 11:59 AM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
Hi sponge ...missed ya while i was away
sounds pretty cut and dry to me ...
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 1:42 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help
|
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
But irish---riddle me this:
If you fired your cute secretary because she's an "at will" employee and can be removed at any time for any reason, and then she came back on you and said that the reason she was fired is because she denied your sexual advances, you'd better darn well believe that your little keister will be in court real quick. "At will" means can be fired for any reason--but not for the wrong reason.
What congress is trying to figure out right now is if these AG's were fired in order to subvert ongoing investigations they were holding into criminal activity being conducted by republicans, including some very high ranking republicans.
And as of this morning, 41% of republicans feel that Gonzalez should resign--so any minute now ya'll can stop calling this just a democratic conspiracy.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 1:45 PM |
ok i need a little non-partisan help |
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
A woman deny my sexual advances....NEVER...lol
|
| |
|
|
|
|