Alberto Gonzales Gets To Lie on YouTube!

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Alberto Gonzales Gets To Lie on YouTube!


    Congress enlists YouTube to grill the attorney general

    Remember it was Republican Senator Arlen Spector who slammed Gonzales the hardest in the hearings a couple days ago and who appears to be backing this idea the most.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by bigSMokey View Post
    Congress enlists YouTube to grill the attorney general

    Remember it was Republican Senator Arlen Spector who slammed Gonzales the hardest in the hearings a couple days ago and who appears to be backing this idea the most.
    I like Arlen Spector. He seems to have a lot of integrity and seems to be one of the few senators who can't be bought easily.
    •   
       

  3. Smile


    "I am sorry lonleygirl15 I just don't recall that conversation."

    "I am sure the president told me something however what that was cannot tell you"

    YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

  4. Hey remember when Bill Clinton fired EVERY US attourney, an unprecedented act by a president? Remember how he fired the Whitewater investigating US attourney in Little Rock and replaced him with Paula Casey, a former law school student of his? Remember when he made his good friend a convicted felon, Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general?
    Clinton had such a stranglehold over the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of the country that the communist Chinese illegally funneled more than $10 million to help his 1996re-election campaign.

    And where were are you delusional BDS sufferers when all that was going on?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Hey remember when Bill Clinton fired EVERY US attourney...
    Hey remember how Clinton was President seven years ago, the issue is THIS administraion, you know the one that's in power right now? Hey remember how the issue is Gonzales' lying to the Senate, in addition to the firings?


    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    ...an unprecedented act by a president?
    Oops! True to your teachings, you just pulled that fact out of your arse. Reagan did the same thing Clinton did. Doesn't unprecedented mean...aww nevermind.

    Therein lies the problem, both Reagan and Clinton did more or less a clean-sweep upon entry into office, and it was seen as typical partisan behavior. But when selective terminations are done well into a second term, suspicions arise that people are being shut up. And that's what the congress is trying to do, find out what happened. However, Gonzales and others are not being cooperative, as we see over and over with this administration. So don't come with the tired Bill Clinton BS.

    Here Reagan did it too, straight from your own Kool-Aid factory:

    FOXNews.com - Attorney General Gonzales: I Acknowledge Mistakes Were Made in Firing of U.S. Attorneys - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

  6. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Wow! Habeus Corpus is not granted, however it can not be taken away? I think if Spector had the power he would have thrown this guy in jail himself.

    I think Bobo is correct. BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) definately exists. Gonzales, Cheney, and Snow are some of the more notable patients. What it appears to be is a syndrome of thought derangement that all under Bush's power exhibit.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bigSMokey View Post
    Hey remember how Clinton was President seven years ago, the issue is THIS administraion, you know the one that's in power right now? Hey remember how the issue is Gonzales' lying to the Senate, in addition to the firings?

    If Gonzales did lie, I am not going to defend him. If he did lie, the democratic trap worked just as planned. Any lie was very stupid because there was no need to. All US Attourneys serve at the will of the president, and he can fire them for political reasons if he chooses so. If the left wing press paid attention to history this drummed up fake scandal wouldnt have even been covered. Thats why Clinton is relevant.

    Gonzales should have admitted for firing US Attourneys for not prosecuting people unless they had over a pound of marijuana. He should have admitted to firing them because their political differences caused them to not enforce the law. At least they didnt fire them to stop an investigation on the PRESIDENT HIMSELF. IE WHITEWATER.



    Oops! True to your teachings, you just pulled that fact out of your arse. Reagan did the same thing Clinton did. Doesn't unprecedented mean...aww nevermind.

    I forgot something. Clinton fired all but one, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff was only spared because powerful Democrat Bill Bradley requested he not be fired. What was unprecedented is the fact that Reno fired and accepted the resignations of all but 1 US Attourney at the same time before their replacements were even named. Reagan fired 89 of the US attourney over a longer period of time without leaving districts with current investigations in limbo for months at a time.

    Therein lies the problem, both Reagan and Clinton did more or less a clean-sweep upon entry into office, and it was seen as typical partisan behavior. But when selective terminations are done well into a second term, suspicions arise that people are being shut up. And that's what the congress is trying to do, find out what happened. However, Gonzales and others are not being cooperative, as we see over and over with this administration. So don't come with the tired Bill Clinton BS.

    Here Reagan did it too, straight from your own Kool-Aid factory:

    [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html]FOXNews.com - Attorney General Gonzales: I Acknowledge Mistakes Were Made in Firing of U.S. Attorneys - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum[/url

    Did Reagan fire someone investigating an illegal land deal he was a apart of, and replace them with a former studen of his? Did Reagan fire them all at once without replacements named? Did Reagan fire them for political differences, or because of his own criminal baggage he brought into the office? Did Bush do any of those things? Clinton did. People were being shut up in his "Clean Sweep". If Bush is relevant, then putting his actions into historical perspective by bringing up Clinton is relevant. This whole investigation is just one giant dog an pony show meant to appease the radical left wing base and smear Bush's name in the mud. Shouldnt congress be doing something else. Say... like passing laws that improve this country?
    These investigations PROVE that democrats dont care about improving our country, only playing childish political games. Unfortunately we all suffer. This must be why Congress' approval rating is as low as the average winter temperature in Alaska.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Clinton had such a stranglehold over the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of the country that the communist Chinese illegally funneled more than $10 million to help his 1996re-election campaign.
    Hey Cnorris I am impressed most people are oblivious to this horrendous abuse of power by Bill Clinton. This is one of the most treasonous act ever committed by a US president.

    Bill Clinton basically traded US military secrets for cold hard cash!

    This is whole reason why Clinton was impeached!

    ..but most Americans think it had some thing to do with getting oral sex from an intern. why?

    ...because for some reason, known only to the people who really run the world, the Republican party and the mainstream media decided that the sexual aspect of the whole debacle was the most important to sensationalize. WTF?

    However that sad event is over its now 2007 and the most treasonous act being committed is by the US attorney general and the Office of the vice president.

    This will slip by as well if Americans only pay attention to the party line bickering and ignore the fact that Gonzales is a criminal. Its to late to get Clinton but, the truth knows no party agenda

  9. Security factors hemmed Gonzales's testimony, White House says - The Boston Globe

    Oh, It was for national security ok, then you get a free pass to break whatever laws you want, right?

    YouTube - You Can't Handle The Truth

  10. NEW WORLD RHINOS: ALBERTO GONZALES - HISTORY OF LIES

    This is a good refresher for anyone who hasn't followed the story.

    This explains why Bush cannot fire Gonzales !!!

    I like the Godfather II connection
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    This must be why Congress' approval rating is as low as the average winter temperature in Alaska.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
    I like Arlen Spector. He seems to have a lot of integrity and seems to be one of the few senators who can't be bought easily.



    Warren Commission anyone?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by zbtboy View Post
    Round and round they spin....

    Its pretty easy to doulbe when the same bill is introduced 15 times. I guess the finally releaized they couldn't get the war bill passed no matter how much pork barrel products they promised.

    You mean filibustering a war bill that has millions in pork spending is wrong?


    "For Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), there is $25 million for spinach growers hurt by last year's E. coli scare. For three conservative Democrats in Georgia, there is $75 million for peanut storage. For lawmakers from the bone-dry West, there is $500 million for wildfire suppression. An additional $120 million is earmarked for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen.

    So far, at least in public pronouncements, the $21 billion in funding beyond President Bush's request has earned Democrats nothing but scorn.

    For more than a year, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R) has tried unsuccessfully to secure federal funds to prevent salt water from intruding on rice fields in his lowland Louisiana district. So it came as a surprise last week when Boustany found $15 million in the House's huge war spending bill for his rice farmers. He hadn't even asked that the bill include it."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by bigSMokey View Post

    I think Bobo is correct. BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) definately exists. Gonzales, Cheney, and Snow are some of the more notable patients. What it appears to be is a syndrome of thought derangement that all under Bush's power exhibit.
    Well since Bush is the all powerful oppressive one, you're under him too.

    ....but that diagnosis was pretty obvious.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. You make it sound like pork is only a problem on the left.

    Oh btw, the record shows more filibusters for non-war related bills so your "15 times" doesnt really ring true.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by zbtboy View Post
    You make it sound like pork is only a problem on the left.
    And you make it sound like filibustering is only a Republican thing when your own Mike Gravel is the poster boy.

    As those who defend Clinton always say "We're talking about now, not then"


    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by zbtboy View Post

    Oh btw, the record shows more filibusters for non-war related bills so your "15 times" doesnt really ring true.
    Oh, BTW, nobody ever said it was JUST the war bill. It was called an example...similar to the numerous immigration attempts as well.

    Maybe for every pork barrel spending amendment, there is a filibuster there. Fine by me.

    ..and the list goes on and on and on.....
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo View Post
    And you make it sound like filibustering is only a Republican thing when your own Mike Gravel is the poster boy.

    As those who defend Clinton always say "We're talking about now, not then"


    I'm not defending Clinton or the filibuster when used by democrats. You can keep changing the topic all you want but you arent refuting the facts. LOL...I dont even know if Gravel has been in office since I've been alive

    Either way, I'm done involving myself in these stupid debates. Its clear that people who dont think or share the same views with the conservative right are obviously wrong and bad for this country. Although i do give you credit, bobo, for not having to resort to pathetic name calling like Norris.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by zbtboy View Post
    I'm not defending Clinton or the filibuster when used by democrats. You can keep changing the topic all you want but you arent refuting the facts. LOL...I dont even know if Gravel has been in office since I've been alive

    Refuting the facts of what? That partisans filibuster? WOW, what a ****in revelation....

    Gravel made filibustering popular in the 70's. Look it up.

    What subject have i changed? I responded to YOUR picture.



    Either way, I'm done involving myself in these stupid debates. Its clear that people who dont think or share the same views with the conservative right are obviously wrong and bad for this country. Although i do give you credit, bobo, for not having to resort to pathetic name calling like Norris.
    It amazes me just how completely selective your viewing is. If you didn't notice, probably 90% of the threads started in this forum are anti-bush, anti-government, anti-administration but I guess one guy, CNORRIS, has tipped the balance so far right that you seem to think that everyone is saying your leftist view is wrong. What the **** are you smoking?

    Almost every thread in this forum attacks the right point of view (if Clinton becomes President it will be the opposite)....funny since the right point of view owns this forum but there are more thread attacking this administration than anything else while they selectively ignore their own parties **** ups.

    Here is a newsflash, when you have selective outrage about the right wing points of view, you will get called on it when you don't acknowledge your hypocrisies in your own party. Since 90% of the threads are bashing the right wing point of view, its a lot of calling out.

    ...and really, anyone on the left complaining about "name calling" takes the cake.


    Time for me to enjoy my Saturday on my right wing, conservative golf course.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Hey remember when Bill Clinton fired EVERY US attourney, an unprecedented act by a president?

    Every administration starts its term by firing all the attorneys and hiring their own. That is standard practice. The issue here is attorneys they had specifically hired being fired for political reasons rather than for legitimate reasons. For a US attorney to be fired, they have to be proven to be guilty of a breach of ethics, malfeasance, or just be shown to suck at their job. You can't fire an attorney for political beliefs just as a company cannot fire an office worker for their political beliefs.


    The real truth is though, no one gives a flying **** about the attorney firings. That's just something some Democrats think they can nail some high level people in the adminisrtation for. Kinda like how they nailed Al Capone on tax evasion.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
    The real truth is though, no one gives a flying **** about the attorney firings. That's just something some Democrats think they can nail some high level people in the adminisrtation for. Kinda like how they nailed Al Capone on tax evasion.
    Well, these specific fired attorneys were working on cases that dealt, with allegations of possible voter tampering and fraud in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election.

    Remember, that Ohio was 2004's Florida, a "swing state" that was the difference in a close election that went to Bush.

    The fired attorneys in question were allegedly ordered to dismiss cases that were directly dealing with the Ohio election fraud.

    They were allegedly fired after they refused to follow their directive from Gonzales / Cheney.

    So, the implication are extremely serious in terms of the intgrity
    of our election system.

    While our form of government is protected by our US Constitution, the weak link in our government is our election system, which as we have witnessed can easily be manipulated.

    Once elected the new government can hamper any post election investigations, so a lot of people do give a f*ck.

    The democrats have the most to lose because, if they could prove voter fraud, it would surly be a boost to their 2008 election plans, as well as hampering the republicans for may elections in the future

  22. Actually, some of the attorneys were fired for NOT investigating voter fraud but they conveniently get cherry picked out..

    "Former U.S. Attorney John McKay said Monday night he was "stunned" to hear President Bush told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last October that Bush had received complaints about U.S. attorneys who were not energetically investigating voter-fraud cases.

    "Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned," McKay said. "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."


    This is nothing more than a PR stunt to get at Rove. They all want Rove...they could care less about the US Attorneys that were fired.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  23. Exclamation


    YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. for Republicans, Bush, and America. That and no Republican will publicly back him , not even on Foxnews!
  24. Exclamation Gonzales Takes Lying To New Heights !!!


    http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2...ng-to-new.html

    He's pretty good at obfuscation as well !!!

  25. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Newt Gingrich says Gonzales is liability. for Republicans, Bush, and America. That and no Republican will publicly back him , not even on Foxnews!
    So?

    I can't believe Fox News would say that. Didn't they get the memo that they are supposed to blindly follow a right wing point of view? Thats it...where is Rupert?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  26. Exclamation


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo View Post
    So?

    I can't believe Fox News would say that. Didn't they get the memo that they are supposed to blindly follow a right wing point of view? Thats it...where is Rupert?
    You think that's something???

    Watch as FOXNEWS slowly starts to support HIlary Clinton for the 2008 presidency.

    The Gonzales thing is the official beginning to the republicans are not helping mind swing, bye bye NEOCONs hello NEOLIBERALS !!!
  27. Exclamation Defying the odds- Gonzales becomes even more evasive !



  28. Vote fraud and intimidation is present on both sides. The absolute desperation in 2004 of liberals was hilarious. Their nation wide anti bush propaganda campaign failed to get them the poll numbers they were looking for, and they were far more likely to commit fraudulent voting acts during that election.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011255.php

    http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010400

    Bush won by 3 million votes in the 2004 popular election, and Democrats acting like the 2004 election was stolen from them is just a desperate and pathetic act.

    Its 2007, time to recover from your Post Election Selection Trauma and move on with your life.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Vote fraud and intimidation is present on both sides. The absolute desperation in 2004 of liberals was hilarious. Their nation wide anti bush propaganda campaign failed to get them the poll numbers they were looking for, and they were far more likely to commit fraudulent voting acts during that election.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011255.php

    http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010400

    So, they "cheated" to lose ? Well, I'm in deep on the conspiracies, but this seems odd.

    Bush won by 3 million votes in the 2004 popular election, and Democrats acting like the 2004 election was stolen from them is just a desperate and pathetic act.

    I am sure you are familiar with the electoral college and how it works, so just imagine in the very controversial State of Ohio election results what would have happened if Kerry had won that state's electoral votes?...that's what the Gonzales thing is all about. Here this chart may help

    Its 2007, time to recover from your Post Election Selection Trauma and move on with your life.
    How about if I just stay here and point out injustices so that they might not happen again?
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Time to get jacked up on HyperTEST: by Axis Labs Sponsored log
    By BigPHusers11 in forum Supplement Logs
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 09:37 PM
  2. What to get a hold on?
    By Zeis in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 03:00 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2006, 11:07 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-16-2006, 11:06 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-02-2005, 07:13 AM
Log in
Log in