http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm
Someone should ask Bush how many other criminal cases he's reviewed recently and whether any of those were incorrect in his expert "legal" opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm
Someone should ask Bush how many other criminal cases he's reviewed recently and whether any of those were incorrect in his expert "legal" opinion.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Pfft, that's not a surprise at all.
Dollars to doughnuts he's completely pardoned when Bush leaves office and never even has to pay that fine
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
All I know is the Daily Show and Colbert Report will be kickass tomorrow.
It is the President's right to pardon anyone he chooses. This has been done numerous times in the past -- and on both sides of the political arena. For example, Alabama was to execute a guy from my town under the drug king pen laws, however, Slick Willie pardoned him to life in prison -- the stupid jerk.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Bush has an "expert "legal" opinion" or if he is just protecting his friends.
I am never surprised by politicians any more!
Favorite Quote:
>For that reason someone invented C++.
BLASPHEMY! Begone from my C board, you foul lover of objects, before the gods of C cast you into the void as punishment for your weakness! There is no penance for saying such things in my presence. You are henceforth excommunicated. Never return to this house, filthy heretic!
No one's saying it's not his right. That doesn't make the cronyism any less transparent, though.Originally Posted by Kennedy
Also, when does "but Clinton did this!" stop being a legitimate excuse in GOP eyes everytime Bush does something bad?
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Please define "bad"?
Basically every time he's done something that everyone (outside of the 20% of the country too dumb to stop supporting) agrees is a bad thing. Hell, I even heard it used as justification for the war.
"but but but clinton fired some cruise missiles there!"
Libby lies to a grand jury about blowing a covert operative's cover and you hear "but clinton lied about getting head!" like it's the same thing. It's an equivalency fallacy, and not even a very good one.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
All politicians are the same -- PERIOD. It is EXTREMELY funny to see the bleeding heart liberals, like yourself, getting all bent out of shape when the "other side" does something "bad".
Funny, I don't see how thinking Bush is a terribly corrupt President makes me a "bleeding heart liberal".
But hey, if you don't have a real argument and can't address points you may as well start calling people names. By your logic about 70-80% of the country are "bleeding heart liberals"
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Personally, I feel like I'm inside a anti-smoke commercial everytime someone calls me liberal.
They do it with a purpose, you know. "Liberal!"... no they actually do it more like "LIBERAL!!". As if being liberal was a disease. You liberal rotten you. Get away from me!
It really confuses me to no end. I like liberal. In fact I'm liberal on the side when I'm feeling political and conservatives happen to be too loud. And I like smoking too. Oh, and I usually like conservatives if they happen to be on mini-skirts.
So Bush is the same too?All politicians are the same -- PERIOD.
When you have a president that passes judgment on court decisions, and makes that judgment public, you already have a problem.President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
> So Bush is the same too?
Yes -- He is way too far left for me.
>When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.
Therein lies the problem of the US -- moral decline.
> Yes -- He is way too far left for me.
Who would be a good candidate? If not a specific person, a list of qualities would be good.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
>a list of qualities would be good.
Willing to do the job w/out pay -- NOT H. Ross, though -- so that the $$ isn't the issue.
Willing to put out an agenda that would revamp G'mnt -- get rid of pork, remove the pay from the congress (let the states pay the congress reps, in place of it coming out of the general Federal Fund), then we get to set the pay rates of the reps.
FOLLOW the agenda.
One that isn't a lawyer already -- ~90% lawyer == crook.
Has a good record of being very moral.
Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.
Sound financial practices within family/business</current political office>
Cannot easily be enticed based on the almighty dollar.
the list goes on and on.
feminist lesbians are harder to fight than attractive females...and the fat ones are harder to kidnap.
Boosh can do anything he wants that is one of the perks of being president, stop complaining...unpatriotic scum.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
