FT is the description of intellectually dishonest.

I think Clinton's firings are brought up because the left is now trying to make it sound that Bush is evil for firing eight.

I think Clinton's firings are brought up because the left is now trying to make it sound that Bush is evil for firing eight.

That might make sense if it was the "left" that constantly brought up the Clinton firings.

That might make sense if it was the "left" that constantly brought up the Clinton firings.

Oh, really now. What do you mean to imply with that? Or are you just clearing your throat?

Oh, really now. What do you mean to imply with that? Or are you just clearing your throat?

::ahem::

The Left hasn't been bringing up Clinton to make Bush look "evil". The Right has been bringing up Clinton in an attempt to justify Bush's actions.

Ah. That makes more sense. No, the left has been talking about eight firings to make Bush look evil.

They don't mention the fact of Clinton's firings. The right has to do that to put things in balance.

Ah. That makes more sense. No, the left has been talking about eight firings to make Bush look evil.

They don't mention the fact of Clinton's firings. The right has to do that to put things in balance.

Clinton's firings are irrelevant, and shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as the recent firings. They occurred at the beginning of his term, just like the beginning of Bush's first term when he replaced the sitting US Attorneys. The Right mentions Clinton when they talk about the beginning of his term, but as you can see from the threads here, they don't mention that Bush fired all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term. All Presidents do that, but the Right wants you to believe Clinton is the only one who did. So far, Bush is the only President mentioned who fired a group of attorneys, for reasons that remain unclear, in the middle of his term. To attempt to equate this with something Clinton did is absurd and obfuscatory. Again, the acts of Clinton were not brought up by the Left, they were used as an excuse by the Right.

Do you get Rush Limbaugh over in Vietnam?

No I don't get Rush Limbaugh in Vietnam and when I am in the states I don't generally listen to him. I am not interested in political propagandists, whether left or right.

I find it interesting that the absolute right of a President to fire U.S. Attorneys never seems to get mentioned in these reports.

As some would agree: I posted legit info.

Correction sisko, you have ignored all the legit and relevent info.

you parrot propaganda, nothing more.

Ah. That makes more sense. No, the left has been talking about eight firings to make Bush look evil.

They don't mention the fact of Clinton's firings. The right has to do that to put things in balance.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Nobody is trying to make Bush look "evil". They are pointing out that he is manipulating the justice system for politcial reasons.

The right is lying about Clinton's firings by trying to claim they are relevent. ALL PRESIDENTS replace the attorneys when they first take office. Reagan did it, Bush Sr. did it, Clinton did it and Bush Jr did it. NOBODY has ever fired 8 of them in the middle of their term before.

Not even the "evil" Bill Clinton.

Nobody is trying to make Bush look "evil". They are pointing out that he is manipulating the justice system for politcial reasons.


That doesn't need comment from me.?

I repeat, because Thislin seems to be taking stupid pills today.

Nobody is trying to make Bush look "evil". They are pointing out that he is manipulating the justice system for politcial reasons.

And you are not right Dharm? Ha Ha don't make me laugh!


Correction sisko, you have ignored all the legit and relevent info.

you parrot propaganda, nothing more.

And you are not right Dharm?

Yes I am right. I am glad you can admit it. :)

So what you are saying is that you never parrot propaganda????????????


Yes I am right. I am glad you can admit it. :)

So what you are saying is that you never parrot propaganda????????????

Unlike you, I don't repeat anything I already know is untrue. (and I am being very generous in giving you the benefit of the doubt here)

Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

I have never seen a more sublime demonstration of the totalitarian mind, a mind which might be likened to a system of gears whose teeth have been filed off at random. Such a snaggle-toothed thought machine, driven by a standard or even substandard libido, whirls with the jerky, noisy, gaudy pointlessness of a cuckoo clock in Hell.

The dismaying thing about the classic totalitarian mind is that any given gear, though mutilated, will have at it’s circumference unbroken sequences of teeth that are immaculately maintained, that are exquisitely machined.
Hence, the cuckoo clock in Hell – keeping perfect time for eight minutes and twenty-three seconds, jumping ahead fourteen minutes, keeping perfect time for six seconds, jumping ahead two seconds, keeping perfect time two hours and one second, then jumping ahead a year.

The missing teeth, of course, are simple, obvious truths, truths available and comprehensible even to ten-year-olds, in most cases.
The willful filing off of gear teeth, the willful doing without certain obvious pieces of information…

That is the closest I can come to explaining the legions, the nations of lunatics I’ve seen in my time.

I have never tampered with a single tooth in my thought machine, such as it is. There are teeth missing, God knows – some I was born without, teeth that will never grow. And other teeth have been stripped by the clutchless shifts of history –
But never have I willfully destroyed a tooth on a gear of my thinking machine. Never have I said to myself, ‘This fact I can do without’.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

...never have I willfully destroyed a tooth on a gear of my thinking machine.... Never have I said to myself, ‘This fact I can do without’.

A beautiful piece of writing.

And thus, Vonnegut demonstrates himself making use of the precise antithesis of the conservative thought process.

The avoidance of certain truths is the absolute bedrock of maintaining a relentlessly conformist, obedient, flag-waving, I-will-think-however-they-instruct-me-to-think rightwing mindset.

_________________________

"I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe" -- Superstitious robot on the animated television show 'Futurama'

I think Clinton's firings are brought up because the left is now trying to make it sound that Bush is evil for firing eight.

The so-called "firings" by Clinton were brought up by the RightWing spinmeisters.

As Vile clearly pointed out, Bush fired all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term, exactly as Clinton did.

To belabor the point, and explain it as if I'm speaking to an eight year old, the controversy here is over the fact that Bush fired the eight U.S. attorneys in question in the middle of his term, and for a purpose that can most reasonably be construed as having been a concern over how they might have ruled in cases they were hearing.

Anyone but a partisan hack would readily understand (and admit) why Bush and his handlers orchestrated the firings......and the bastards who did it ought to be held accountable for their despicable lies and dishonesty.

No I don't get Rush Limbaugh in Vietnam and when I am in the states I don't generally listen to him. I am not interested in political propagandists, whether left or right.

I listen to him when I'm in the mood to yell at the radio, or like today, when I want to see what I'll be reading on the forums tomorrow. :)

Rush was still making the comparison between the 8 fired by Bush and the 93 that were replaced at the beginning of Clinton's term. Sad that many people will think it a valid comparison simply because he only states half the story.


I find it interesting that the absolute right of a President to fire U.S. Attorneys never seems to get mentioned in these reports.

While I agree as President he has the "power" to fire them, I wouldn't say he has the "right" to fire them without cause. He certainly shouldn't be firing them for political reasons IMO, as that calls into question their ability to be impartial politically in their criminal prosecutions. I don't want the US Attorneys Office living in fear of whatever political party happens to be in power.

Rumors have it that Gonzales is now Gone-zales. Bush is shopping for a replacement. He probably should look for 2.

The thing is.. due to the fact that all presidents clean house at the beginning.. you can't whine and cry over replacing 8 attorneys mid term. They are all hand-picked.. correct? So what does it matter WHO is in there.. all that matters is that there is corruption afoot. However, Bush replacing 8 attorneys mid term makes him no more corrupt than any other president who replaces all 93 attorneys... there really isn't any difference.

The thing is.. due to the fact that all presidents clean house at the beginning.. you can't whine and cry over replacing 8 attorneys mid term.

I would say the exact opposite is true.

Since they replace them all at the beginning... thus tilting any decision their way, what does it matter if they do it mid-term? Either way they are corrupt.

Gonzales now accused in teen sex scandal 'cover-up'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861

Whoa boy [pun intended] wtf is it with conservatives and teenage boys?