• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Alberto Gonzales be fired?

Should Alberto Gonzales be fired?

  • Total voters
    17

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I believe Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's appointed "yes" man, needs to be removed from office. Firing U.S. Attorneys for not obeying Emperor Bush is NOT acceptable. It is nothing more than neo-con facaist interference in the internal workings of the justice system.

As such, Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and the rest of the neo-scum needs to be removed from office.
 
The term "facist" is inaccurate and hostile when applied to Bush and the "Neo-Cons". When used it makes the case that the person is trying to make difficult to even listen to due to it's erroneous nature.

Though NAZI's were Socialist in name, they were not in reality. If you would like to learn about what facism truly is, read up on Mussulini or Hitler. To describe today's Right which is further Left than most people realize as Facist is mistaken.
 
I personally think he should, i was watching The Daily Show yesterday and i though that they adressed it pretty nice, they were like he fired these guys nd hired these guys and all of them had I LOVE BUSH shirts. thought that was funny.

What was the reason behind the firing? They couldve just said that they didnt listen to Bush, what was their aliby?
 
I'm not sure. If the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, then he's free to fire them for any reason he wants, right? It seems like a shitty thing to do, but as far as I know, no laws were broken.
 
The guy is the antithesis of "justice." He should never have been appointed in the first place.
 
Absolutely not. Clinton's administration fired 93 US Attorneys. It's not that big a deal and it's fully within the president's rights to have attorneys that are on his side. I think the problem comes from the fact that they used a provision of the Patriot Act to replace them without senate oversight.
 
Jallman said:
Absolutely not. Clinton's administration fired 93 US Attorneys. It's not that big a deal and it's fully within the president's rights to have attorneys that are on his side.
Click to expand...
here we go with the good ol' Clinton red herring. somebody's just got to throw that fish out there every single time. they read about it at newsbusters or freerepublic, and of course, always with the context removed.

it's common for presidents to replace attorneys at the beginning of their terms. attorneys then usually serve their terms. it's unusual for a President to fire attorneys in the middle of his second term.

Jallman said:
I think the problem comes from the fact that they used a provision of the Patriot Act to replace them without senate oversight.
Click to expand...
uh-huh. Bingo. what was that you were saying about it not being a big deal? laws are a big deal.
 
niftydrifty said:
here we go with the good ol' Clinton red herring. somebody's just got to throw that fish out there every single time. they read about at newsbusters or freerepublic, and of course, always with the context removed.
Click to expand...

Rarely ever do I point to what Clinton did in his presidency, but the way the media is portraying this is beyond reasonable.

it's common for presidents to replace attorneys at the beginning of their terms. then the attorneys serve terms. attorneys then usually serve their terms. it's unusual for a President to fire attorneys in his second term.
Click to expand...

President's may hire and fire attorneys at will. It is part of his power. Spin it however you want with nonsense about first and second terms, but the fact remains, on this issue, nothing was done wrong.

uh-huh. Bingo. what was that you were saying about it not being a big deal? laws are a big deal.
Click to expand...

Are you always this caustic and unreasonable even when someone is agreeing with you, for the most part.

As to the issue of Gonzales...he did his job. He hired new attorneys under a law ratified by the legislature. If they don't like the law after the fact, change it, but don't fire an attorney general for acting under the provisions of the current law. That's just typical democrat bloodlust.
 
jallman said:
Are you always this caustic and unreasonable...
Click to expand...
this isn't an argument. nor is it accurate.

correction, "democratic."

the hirings aren't the issue. the firings are.
 
niftydrifty said:
this isn't an argument. nor is it accurate.
Click to expand...

Correct on the first part: it was a question. Now that we have established that you can tell when a sentence is not written in the imperative or in the active voice, we can move on.

The second part, the assessment of your caustic tone is more than accurate. One would say it is in plain blue and black if you scroll up.

correction, "democratic."
Click to expand...

Democrat is what I said and it is exactly what I meant. Democrats are the ones constantly calling for blood of anyone they can.

the hirings aren't the issue. the firings are.
Click to expand...

The firings aren't an issue until democrats make an issue out of the president exercising what is in his power to do so. And even if they were politically motivated, so fu/ckin what? It is a political position granted by a political figure. What do you expect?
 
They can fire who the hell ever they want to. Been going on for years. I personally think he should have never been hired. But, be that as it may, Gonzales has every right to terminate anybody he feels isn't doing the job the way he thinks they should be doing it. Period. he's the head honcho. Whether I agree with him or not is not even significant. Most of us in here has a boss. Kinda sucks, huh?

people beotch about who they got working for them in Washington and when they lets some of them go they whine about that too.

You can't win. If Gonzales is to be fired, it should be for doing something he is not allowed to do.
 

Brilliantly stated!!!!
 
Gonzales is a POS and is one of the worst AG's this country has ever had. He's a political yes man who has done nothing but damage to this country's reputation abroad.

Yes, he should be fired then arrested for crimes against America!
 
Awww c'mon Billo! Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back man. Let it out. We are all here for you.
 
Originally posted by Captain America
March madness...spring is in the air.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Captain America
Awww c'mon Billo! Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back man. Let it out. We are all here for you.
Click to expand...
Alright, you got it!

Go Bruins

Go Long Beach State 49ers

awwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooooooggggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
 
Billo_Really said:
Gonzales is a POS and is one of the worst AG's this country has ever had. He's a political yes man who has done nothing but damage to this country's reputation abroad.

Yes, he should be fired then arrested for crimes against America!
Click to expand...

Hysterics unless you can point to something to back this up...don't you find it odd that you feel this way about EVERY member of this administration?
 
Originally posted by jallman:
Hysterics unless you can point to something to back this up...don't you find it odd that you feel this way about EVERY member of this administration?
Click to expand...
Nope!............
 
Gonzales is the guy who tried to change the meaning of GC terms just so no one in the Administration would be in violation of them. That in itself means he is nothing but scum!
 
Well actually if he only did what he was allowed to I dont think he should be fired. It might have been wrong but if he was allowed to do that, and if they dont need a reason for firing them why not? Its like the spoils system, if you have a chance to do something or get something you take it or someone else will.
 
Not no but hell no..........Janet Reno fired 93 state attorneys and she was not fired........HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
 
David Bose, Gores's lead attorney in 2000 said that there has not even been a crime committed.....Strictly partianson politics as usual..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…