Democrats have votes to hold 2 White House officials in contempt

[Stinger]

Reading comprehension just isn't your thing.

Actually I'm beginning to wonder what your native tongue is.

My statements have been clear and simple English.


Originally Posted by Stinger
How does exercising his constitutional authority turn the office into a monarchy? As I said the neo-prog view is now when the President does what he is clearly and explicitly authorized to do he is acting like a king.

You>> When the president is above the law is when he becomes king.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Ok, so what are you saying, when the President exercising his constitutional authority he is putting himself above the law? That's absurd.


You>> No, when he breaks the law.


Me>> There was no evidence produced any law was broken, he has the constitutional authority to fire US Attorneys so don't try to shift the argument.

As I said to the neo-progs the President executing his constitutional authority is creating a monarchy.<<

Break down the sentence. "to the neo-pragues" is modifying "As I said". "is creating a monarchy."

Nope.

As I said meaning previously said. Not a principle part of the sentence

to the neo-progs, in their mind

the President executing his constitutional authority

their belief.

Which is entirely consistent with what I previously said.

Thanks for wasting everyones time on your nonsense.

 

[Thorgasm]

Actually I'm beginning to wonder what your native tongue is.

My statements have been clear and simple English.


Originally Posted by Stinger
How does exercising his constitutional authority turn the office into a monarchy? As I said the neo-prog view is now when the President does what he is clearly and explicitly authorized to do he is acting like a king.


You>> When the president is above the law is when he becomes king.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Ok, so what are you saying, when the President exercising his constitutional authority he is putting himself above the law? That's absurd.


You>> No, when he breaks the law.


Me>> There was no evidence produced any law was broken, he has the constitutional authority to fire US Attorneys so don't try to shift the argument.

As I said to the neo-progs the President executing his constitutional authority is creating a monarchy.<<




Nope.

As I said meaning previously said. Not a principle part of the sentence

to the neo-progs, in their mind

the President executing his constitutional authority

their belief.

Which is entirely consistent with what I previously said.

Thanks for wasting everyones time on your nonsense.

Your first sentence was this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/670381-post119.html

As I said to the neo-progs the President executing his constitutional authority is creating a monarchy.

Now you change your sentence instead of manning up. :roll:

As I said the neo-prog view is now when the President does what he is clearly and explicitly authorized to do he is acting like a king.

Now I will admit my mistake, like a man. You meant to have a comma after "As I said". Now I get your point. Proper punctuation makes a difference. It's nice that you think that you have a better command of the English language. Perhaps if you keep claiming that, it might come true. What size dress do you wear?:rofl

 

[Stinger]

Your first sentence was this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/670381-post119.html

It was

How does exercising his constitutional authority turn the office into a monarchy? As I said the neo-prog view is now when the President does what he is clearly and explicitly authorized to do he is acting like a king.

My second was just a reiteration and you knew it. I have no further interest in your trolling.

 

[Thorgasm]

It was

How does exercising his constitutional authority turn the office into a monarchy? As I said the neo-prog view is now when the President does what he is clearly and explicitly authorized to do he is acting like a king.

My second was just a reiteration and you knew it. I have no further interest in your trolling.

He isn't authorized to torture.

 

[Stinger]

He isn't authorized to torture.

Why are you trying to shift the subject?

 

[Pull My Finger]

Yep and WE THE PEOPLE elected him TWICE!

WRONG.

SCOTUS voted Bush in, in 2000 - Not the people.

Peace

 

[Stinger]

WRONG.

SCOTUS voted Bush in, in 2000 - Not the people.

Peace

Wrong the STATES voted him the President as they do in every presidential election.

 

[disneydude]

Wrong the STATES voted him the President as they do in every presidential election.

No. The States voted for Gore. It was the Supreme Court that gave the Presidency to Bush (the only man other than Ford to serve as President without actually being elected).

 

[dixon76710]

Americans have said...enough is enough. Bush will be held accountable whether you want it to happen or not.

????"Held accountable"? The democrats dont allege that the firings were illegal. They dont allege the firings by the President to be beyond his authority. Simply, the

Democrats say the firings were politically motivated.

They want to be able to back up their claim that Bush was "politically motivated", likely along with some expressions of moral indignation over a politician being political.

 

[disneydude]

????"Held accountable"? The democrats dont allege that the firings were illegal. They dont allege the firings by the President to be beyond his authority. Simply, the



They want to be able to back up their claim that Bush was "politically motivated", likely along with some expressions of moral indignation over a politician being political.

Your post is exactly what is wrong with many in the GOP camp these days. The claim is to fall back on the "it wasn't illegal" line. Personally, I yearn for the days that people were AS concerned about ethics as they were about the illegality. There are many things that may walk the line of legality but are clearly unethical. But those are conveniently sidestepped by the Bush supporters these days.

 

[dixon76710]

No. The States voted for Gore. It was the Supreme Court that gave the Presidency to Bush .

???? You are mistaken. The states voted for Bush. Gore tried to use the Florida Supreme court to take the Presidency from Bush. The Supreme Court of the US wouldnt allow them to do so.

 

[dixon76710]

Your post is exactly what is wrong with many in the GOP camp these days. The claim is to fall back on the "it wasn't illegal" line. Personally, I yearn for the days that people were AS concerned about ethics as they were about the illegality.

There is nothing ethically wrong with terminating employees for political reasons. They dont call them "political appointments" for nothing.

 

[disneydude]

???? You are mistaken. The states voted for Bush. Gore tried to use the Florida Supreme court to take the Presidency from Bush. The Supreme Court of the US wouldnt allow them to do so.

How so? Recounts are very common in elections and the results overwhelmingly show that if the counts had not been stopped, Gore would have won. The Supreme Court knew this and stopped the recount in an unprecedented more, ensuring that Bush would be the only person other than Ford to serve as President without actually being elected.

 

[dixon76710]

How so? Recounts are very common in elections and the results overwhelmingly show that if the counts had not been stopped, Gore would have won.

"results"??? You mean the results the media got? They all showed that in fact Bush actually won.
Pathetic to see how soon history has been re written for the masses.

An Online NewsHour Report

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

 

[Thorgasm]

Why are you trying to shift the subject?

That is the premise for him acting as king. He breaks the law, like a monarch.

 

[Thorgasm]

There is nothing ethically wrong with terminating employees for political reasons. They dont call them "political appointments" for nothing.

If you can't see what is wrong with politicizing the Justice Department, I can't help you.

 

[disneydude]

"results"??? You mean the results the media got? They all showed that in fact Bush actually won.
Pathetic to see how soon history has been re written for the masses.

You need to read your own article dude. Even in the article you posted it does not conclude that Bush actually won. It includes one scenario where Bush could have won, but indicates that under several other scenarios the vote count would have been in Gore's favor.

That aside, there have been numerous other accounts that indicate had the recount not been stopped Gore would have won the election. I know its painful, but Bush was annointed King...er...President by the SCOTUS....maybe this explains why he acts more like a monarch than a President.

 

[dixon76710]

You need to read your own article dude. Even in the article you posted it does not conclude that Bush actually won. It includes one scenario where Bush could have won, but indicates that under several other scenarios the vote count would have been in Gore's favor.

You said

the results overwhelmingly show that if the counts had not been stopped, Gore would have won. The Supreme Court knew this and stopped the recount

What part of

The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

did you not understand? I was talking about the real world, not some hypothetical world where Florida State law on election recounts are ignored and county standards for conducting those recounts are also ignored.
Had the Florida Supreme Court decision been affirmed by the US Sct, the recount Gore asked for would have been conducted, and Bush would have won. To say the Supreme Court elected Bush is complete BS accepted by the ignorant masses. Either way the S ct decided, the results would have been the same. Bush won.

 

[Pull My Finger]

Wrong the STATES voted him the President as they do in every presidential election.

I would expect this from you...

Twist it anyway you like, Stinger.

The fact is Katherine Harris was Seceratary of State, in charge of the vote count, and co-chair of Bush's Presidential campaign.

She stopped the vote count in both Gadsden and Palm Beach.

Three words: Conflict of Interest.

SCOTUS elected Bush, but you already know your (non)answer...

Peace

 

[dixon76710]

I would expect this from you...

Twist it anyway you like, Stinger.

The fact is Katherine Harris was Seceratary of State, in charge of the vote count, and co-chair of Bush's Presidential campaign.

She stopped the vote count in both Gadsden and Palm Beach.

Three words: Conflict of Interest.

SCOTUS elected Bush, but you already know your (non)answer...

Peace

To say the Supreme Court elected Bush is complete BS accepted by the ignorant masses. Either way the S ct decided, the results would have been the same. Bush won.

 

[Pull My Finger]

To say the Supreme Court elected Bush is complete BS accepted by the ignorant masses. Either way the S ct decided, the results would have been the same. Bush won.

How do you know when the recount was stopped?

Peace

 

[dixon76710]

How do you know when the recount was stopped?

Peace

The media recounts. How do YOU know differently? At least my belief is based on some substance. Yours, nothing more than a desparate need to believe it is so.

 

[disneydude]

If you can't see what is wrong with politicizing the Justice Department, I can't help you.

But that is exactly what is wrong with the Bush Apologists....they only see things in terms of legal/illegal. Ethics mean nothing to them

 

[dixon76710]

But that is exactly what is wrong with the Bush Apologists....they only see things in terms of legal/illegal. Ethics mean nothing to them

Oooh let me guess, youve somehow convinced yourself that when Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys and replaced them with Democrats, it had nothing to do with politics.

 

[Thorgasm]

Oooh let me guess, youve somehow convinced yourself that when Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys and replaced them with Democrats, it had nothing to do with politics.

Apples and oranges. He did so at the beginning of his term. He didn't do it because they weren't prosecuting his opponents fast enough. Bush replaced republicans who weren't republican enough. :mrgreen: