Alberto Gonzales & His Amazing Memory!!!
- 04-24-2007, 06:40 AM
Well there goes any reasonable doubt theories as a defense!
I can't believe this guy is still a public official!
unless there is an underlying scheme?
Support of Gonzales affirms power play - The Boston Globe
- 04-24-2007, 09:51 AM
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
another tidbit. ...
October 7, 2005
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a U.S. legislative watchdog group, has released a report attempting to document the unethical and illegal activities of who they are calling the "most tainted members of Congress". In describing the reasons for the report Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "[CREW] was compelled to research and release a report on these corrupt members because the ethics committees in both the House and Senate are completely inert. The report calls for the House and Senate to act to investigate and take appropriate action against them for these violations of the rules." She went on to attack both parties regarding ethics, "Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for the current ethics deadlock. The Democrats won't file ethics complaints against even the most egregious violators like DeLay and Ney. The Democrats are spineless."
The report is entitled "Beyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress", seeking to capitalize on the current media attention on ethics that has come about due to the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
The report covers possible violations of federal laws, as well as congressional ethics rules. To compile the report, CREW drew upon Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports and audits, sworn testimony, emails, and personal financial and travel disclosure forms. By analyzing that information, CREW then attempted to determine if the member's activities violated federal laws, regulations, or congressional ethics rules. (excluding the obvious Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay)
(The 11 Republican and 2 Democratic) members of Congress covered are:
o [corruption:] Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN, Senate Majority leader), Retired in 2006
o [corruption:] Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO, House Majority Whip)
o [corruption:] Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA) Imprisoned in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
o [corruption:] Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
o [corruption:] Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
o [corruption:] Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) Resigned in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) Defeated in 2006
o [corruption:] Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
o [corruption:] Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
o [corruption:] Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
- 04-24-2007, 12:44 PM
Two things: I believe Gonzales was ineptly attempting to show that the constitution applies to Citizens of the United States and not to foreigners. Whether a person from another country who seeks to terrorize and does not wear a military uniform should be subject to the Geneva convention, let alone our constitution is dubious at best.
Secondly, the Republicans listed above that are guilty of ethics issues are accused of some relatively minor issues. Charles Taylor, for example, abused his Representative position to fly out to Russia to further his own personal business dealings. Is it a waste, and does it have nothing to do with his Representative duties? Yes and yes, but how is this any different than politicians who abuse their power to fly across the country campaigning? Both situations are wrong, should not be on the tax payers dime, and should be rectified.
I also find it comical that dingy Harry didn't make the list after his real estate fiasco
04-24-2007, 01:02 PM
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
ALL men! Not all men born in the United States, not all American citizens, but all men.
There has been no change to the US constitution in its power to protect those rights!
The Patriot Act gives a temporary and congressionally reviewed power to single out individuals that may be considered "enemy combatants". It in and of itself does not remove their rights.
These rights are unalienable(cannot be removed) anywhere in the "free" universe!!!
04-24-2007, 02:47 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
04-24-2007, 03:24 PM
I understand the Declaration of Independence, I have a copy framed on my wall. The second sentence that you are quoting is in the context of a prolonged explanation for why the founding fathers were rebelling and why they believed that they were within their rights to throw off GB and form a new government. It was not meant to convey that all people from everywhere in the world are all entitled to constitutional protection via "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If we were to use that logic, then we couldn't have prisons or law enforcement at all, as that would infringe upon one's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Heck, we couldn't even defend ourselves, as that would be denying someone their right to life.
04-24-2007, 06:27 PM
You have the right to a life. You do not have the right to infringe the life of another person.
You have the right to Liberty. You do not have the right to infringe the liberty of another person.
You have the right to pursue happiness. You do not have the right to infringe the pursuit of happiness of another person
That's why we have a Laws!..to protect those rights!
Think about the reason that the GWB says that the USA is in Iraq.... Isn't it to protect the freedoms of the Iraqi people?
04-24-2007, 07:42 PM
[QUOTE=anabolicrhino;792664]This is a reply to "cnorris", who for some reason has trouble with the HTML editor.
I obviously didnt have ANY trouble with the last 2/3 of it, and it was a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote. The HTML editor has a problem with that, nice attempt at another character assasignation. Libs really love doing that.
04-24-2007, 07:53 PM
04-24-2007, 09:32 PM
When is the last time there was a rogue radical religous group that made an attack on civilians that killed over 3,000 people? Long after the Geneva convention was written. You just assume it protects these stateless thugs, even though there is no wording stating so. Another reason people of your ilk deserve to bear the brunt of any terrorist attack. You defend them more than you do you own government.
Yes it protects them just like the constitution protects them. Why it even protects you.
Why are you so afraid?
Who are you afraid of?...terrorist? liberals?democrats?
Don't worry big daddy Bush will protect you from the evil doers!
Ok, other than on 9/11/2001 when he kind of dropped the ball.
but that was Clintons fault right?
Anyhow all those hijackers were killed, I mean except for the ones that are still alive.
but at least Bush took down Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"!
Just like he said he would! remember when they hung him for those crimes, oh wait that was Sadaam.
Ok so you must be afraid of the 7 living hijackers and Osama bin Laden, right?
So, to protect you from those "freedom hating" terrorists who want to take away your freedom, Bush is taking away your freedom so you don't have to worry about losing them!
What a plan! I can see why "you" support him so vigorously!!!
04-24-2007, 10:24 PM
I love, not, this ancient game of divide and conquer, pick a side and demonize the other to keep the public distracted,instead of seeing truth, manipulating scum all, and being the change you wish to see, active individual non cooperation and thwarting this organized crime.
Individual Self Responsibility and Freedom!!!! Catch as catch can, so far, too ****ing slow to catch me.
Army of One, I ask not and I give not, that's what built and maintains America, the one I believe in.
What 's sad about America these days is that it's in dire need of alternative political leadership, Credible Rebels, those most able to do this are those least likely to, it's a neg sum game with too much personal risk to get for the undeserving masses at too great a cost to their own pleasureable experience of life. Cough, CDB.
04-24-2007, 11:42 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
04-24-2007, 11:44 PM
Qur'an 48:17 "There is no blame for the blind, nor is it a sin for the lame, nor on one ill if he joins not in the fighting. But he who retreats, (Allah) will punish him with a painful doom."
Qur'an 4:77 "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: ‘Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'"
Qur'an 4:78 "Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high! If some good befalls, they say, ‘This is from Allah;' but if evil, they say, ‘This is from you (Muhammad).' Say: ‘All things are from Allah.' So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?"
Qur'an 4:88 "What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."
Qur'an 4:89 "They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah's Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."
Qur'an 47:20 "Those who believe say, ‘How is it that no surah was sent down (for us)?' But when a categorical [decisive or uncompromising] surah is revealed, and fighting and war (Jihad, holy fighting in Allah's Cause) are ordained, you will see those with diseased hearts looking at you (Muhammad) fainting unto death. Therefore woe unto them!"
Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."
Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward."
Qur'an:47:4 "So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
04-25-2007, 02:30 AM
04-25-2007, 08:38 AM
Sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. The Declaration of Independence is self explanatory; it is a document detailing the reasoning for why the founding fathers were establishing a new nation, and that they felt their rights had been violated by, among other things, unfair taxation. They did not mean to convey that all people at all times everywhere within the world are subject to our constitution. Individual laws may be passed to specifically apply laws, rights or regulations to non US citizens within our borders, and that is where they should be.
If you want to argue the premise that perhaps everyone should get a lawyer, even captured terrorists in combatant zones, that's a separate issue but suffice to say, war is about killing people and breaking things, and to believe otherwise is naive.
04-25-2007, 11:43 AM
04-25-2007, 08:47 PM
Cantwell calls for Gonzalez to resign
..in the beating a dead horse category...
Bush can count among his close personal friends a "justice obstructing" Attorney General !
The Kennedy brothers didn't have this much collusion!!!
04-27-2007, 08:25 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By TheSwanks in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 284Last Post: 11-19-2014, 03:37 AM
- By bigSMokey in forum PoliticsReplies: 41Last Post: 08-06-2007, 01:13 AM
- By anabolicrhino in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 04-18-2007, 05:07 PM
- By IronWinner in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 01-03-2003, 01:50 AM
- By Blindfaith in forum Weight LossReplies: 6Last Post: 11-04-2002, 06:46 PM