The Democrats are to Blame for our Economic Problems

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:33 pm

seastreet wrote:
semo88 wrote:6 years ago…wasn’t Congress controlled by Republicans? 2005…wasn’t Congress still controlled by Republicans?

Funny how things get twisted around depending on the issue. I’ve heard a few folks on here say that the reason we’re in this mess is because Dems forced regulations on banks making them give loans to unqualified people. Now I’m hearing that if the Dems had LET Repubs pass regulations, we wouldn’t be in this mess.


Perhaps you need to take a look at this...

http://www.duckhuntingchat.com/viewtopic.php?p=551653#551653

Yeah that wasn't showing up when you originally posted it...weird. Thanks for reposting though :thumbsup: .

From your own party's mouth. Dems wouldn't even let it come out of committee. A house style of what the Senate would call a fillibuster.


A couple comments. First, I don’t know if it’s impressive or sad that someone took that much time to find and edit a video about that, using material from ’04. Second, I don’t put a lot of stock in videos that don’t show the whole conversation. I’ll grant you the fact that based on the video you provided, it does look pretty damning to the Democrats. But again, I’d like to have heard what both the R’s and the D’s had to say between all the editing. Third, I still want to know…were the Republicans not in control of the House and the Senate in ’04? And was there no vote on this issue? I don’t understand how, if the Republicans held the majority and wanted something done, that the Democrats were able to get more votes with less members.
Last edited by semo88 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri


Postby seastreet » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:44 pm

semo88 wrote:Yeah that wasn't showing up when you originally posted it...weird. Thanks for reposting though :thumbsup: .

A couple comments. First, I don’t know if it’s impressive or sad that someone took that much time to find and edit a video about that, using material from ’04. Second, I don’t put a lot of stock in videos that don’t show the whole conversation. I’ll grant you the fact that based on the video you provided, it does look pretty damning to the Democrats. But again, I’d like to have heard what both the R’s and the D’s had to say between all the editing. Third, I still want to know…were the Republicans not in control of the House and the Senate in ’04? And was there no vote on this issue? I don’t understand how, if the Republicans held the majority and wanted something done, that the Democrats were able to get more votes with less members.


First... I would appreciate it if you would change your font color when typing within my post. It might give an impression that I said something when I didn't.

Second... The GOP held the Congress, but due to the fact that they did not hold a veto proof majority, the Dems blocked the bill from coming out of committee by a parliamentary procedure. It is widely known on Capitol Hill. This scandal is on par with the Enron and Worldcom scandals, in which people and politicians went to jail. The same needs to happen here. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd & Frank Raines need to be indicted. Obama was second in received kickbacks from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. He needs to be investigated too. The whole thing stinks, and the Dems just want to sweep it under the rug, so they can get elected.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed by the Justice Department immediately.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:47 pm

Hmmm....that post didn't post like it was supposed to. Sorry, I'll edit. Didn't mean to type inside your quote.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:52 pm

One more thing, I find it strange that in this case we have Republicans supposedly insisting that regulations are put in place while Democrats are supposedly fighting it. Seems backwards.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby seastreet » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:17 pm

semo88 wrote:One more thing, I find it strange that in this case we have Republicans supposedly insisting that regulations are put in place while Democrats are supposedly fighting it. Seems backwards.


You can't give credit where credit is due? They saw someone (Frank Raines) gaming the system and throwing kickbacks to liberal politicians, and putting the economy at risk, so they wanted to reform it to bring balance. Republicans aren't necessarily against regulation. Just socialist regulation. They believe in a fair and free market.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:21 pm

It has nothing to do with giving credit, so do NOT go there. I just find it odd because usually it’s the Repubs fighting off regulation, not proposing it.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Pacific Fisher » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 pm

Seastreet posted,

"A special prosecutor needs to be appointed by the Justice Department immediately."

One has been appointed and is currently very occupied in the investigation of Bush Administration wrong doing in the Justice Department US Attorney firing scandal.

C.B.



Special prosecutor to investigate U.S. attorney firings
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press
Sept. 29, 2008, 6:03PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 29324.html


Pablo Martinez Monsivais AP
In this Aug. 27, 2007 file photo, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announces his resignation. Gonzales "bears primary responsibility" for the process of firing of nine federal prosecutors and the turmoil that followed, a report released today said.

Share Print Email Del.icio.usDiggTechnoratiYahoo! BuzzWASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a prosecutor Monday to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The launching of a criminal inquiry follows the recommendation of internal Justice Department investigators who concluded that, despite denials of the administration, political considerations played a part in the firings of at least four of the federal prosecutors.

In their 358-page report, investigators said the lack of cooperation by senior officials at the White House and in the Justice Department left gaps in their findings that should be investigated further.

"Serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved," the report said, listing lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud among the potential felony crimes.

Mukasey's appointment of Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry leaves open the possibility that it won't be finished before President Bush leaves office in January.

Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.

"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The report unsparingly criticized Bush administration officials, Republican members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which touched off a scandal that stripped the Justice Department of its leadership and sparked a historic showdown in court.

The report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Director Marshall Jarrett described Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty as "remarkably disengaged" from the process that led to the dismissal of the prosecutors.

Monday's report was the latest to criticize Gonzales' management of the Justice Department during his 31 months as attorney general. Gonzales quit under fire in September 2007.

In a statement issued by his attorney, Gonzales said: "My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges."

Gonzales' attorney George Terwilliger noted that the report found no unlawful conduct. "It seems rather odd," Terwilliger said, "that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor."

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper reasons.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico — one of the nine — as the most troubling. A leading Republican political figure in New Mexico, Sen. Pete Domenici, had complained about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, and that led to his firing, the report said.

Iglesias, who now works as a paid speaker and practices law part-time, said he thinks criminal investigations should be pursued against Domenici and anyone else who may have broken federal criminal laws. He said he had not yet seen the report.

"I've said all along that these moves were improper and illegal and now it appears that they were criminal as well," he said in an interview. "Our complaints weren't just complaints of disgruntled former employees."

A spokesmen for Domenici did not respond to requests for comment. He is leaving Congress at the end of the year.

Investigators said their inquiry of the firing of Iglesias and others was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Domenici, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling and other key witnesses.

The president's refusal to let Rove, Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten testify before Congress about the firings touched off a legal fight that is now before a federal appeals court. Most recently a judge ordered Miers to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

The report concluded that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was the person most responsible for developing the plan to fire the prosecutors and said that Sampson's comments to Congress, the White House and others were misleading.

Sampson and others claimed at first that the prosecutors' poor performance inspired their firings. But the 358-page report found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

It also said the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Bond did not immediately return a call for comment.

Investigators found no evidence that Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego were fired for prosecuting Republican members of Congress.

Similarly, the report says Justice Department officials had legitimate concerns about the work of two other prosecutors who were fired — Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.
Last edited by Pacific Fisher on Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby Rat Creek » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 pm

semo88 wrote:
seastreet wrote:From your own party's mouth.


Just to clarify, I don't have a party. I just happen to be voting for Obama. I'm voting for about as many Republicans as I am Democrats this November.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course you are Ms. Obama.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4448
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Postby semo88 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:47 pm

Damn, ya caught me.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby seastreet » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:30 am

Attorney Gonzales has been gone for a while now PF. Nice of you to hijack a thread so you can divert the attention off of your messiah and his crooked dealings. Nothing has changed with you. I suggest you start your own thread, and leave this one on topic (Fannie Mae & Fredie Mac & the Democrats).

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed immediately to investigate Raines, Dodd, Frank & Obama and their ties to this scandal involving turning a blind eye to corruption and even participating in corruption. The fox has feathers sticking out of his mouth, and wants to be in charge of security of the henhouse.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby Brydog » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:53 am

I received an e-mail from Alberto Gonzales this morning !

I can't believe he remembered my e-mail address ! :tongue:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~Stephen Roberts
User avatar
Brydog
Banned
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 pm
Location: Lake Isabella Michigan, Houghton Lake Michigan

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:22 am

Maybe when the special prosecutor finishes with the Justice Department scandal he can take on other projects.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:28 am

Pacific Fisher wrote:Maybe when the special prosecutor finishes with the Justice Department scandal he can take on other projects.
Why is there only one special prosecuter in the entire country?

Neglecting the obvious fact that the President can fire the U.S. attorneys for any reason. Bill Clinton fired ALL of them. They were all really that bad. Of course not, but he wanted to hide the fact that he wanted to fire the ones investigating him, so he just fired them all allowing people like you to pretend like it wasn't political. I don't know how firing some people that had to have been doing a good job for no reason at all was a good thing, but I don't understand much of your reasoning.

Fitzgerald will be fired the moment Obama is inaugarated, God forbid. Will he simply fire him or do a Clintonesque approach? I don't know, but the investigations of Rezko and the Illinois Democratic Machine will come to a screeching hault. Will it be front page national news? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:34 am

No problem Spinner,

I will track and report on criminal investigations/indictments of the Repubs and you can handle the Dem side. :thumbsup:

Based on the last eight years, your work load will be considerably lighter. :rofl:
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:15 am

I have no idea what your point was.

No response on the Clinton firings because you can't defend that and condemn Bush, so you just pretend like it never happened.

No response about Fitzgerald because in your heart you know it's true, but you don't care. There is no right and wrong. It's just us against them.

Republicans get caught and they lose their jobs. Democrats get caught and they rally the troops to their defense and have pep rallies on the Capitol Building steps.

Obama has all these "questionable" relationships and he is the One :bow:

Rangle - nothing will happen and he will be reelected for as long as he likes.

Jefferson - he will be reelected for as long as he is out of jail and will get reelected after he gets out if he wants.

Frank - "respected" expert on the economy that had a gay prostitution ring in his house

Kennedy - lies about his involvement in the death of a women. Senator for life. Liberal icon.

The list is very long. Do you guys have any sense of right and wrong because I'm sick of your BS attempts to label us as hypocrits because of minor lapses of judgment with no criminal intent. We have standards. Althoug it isn't perfection. Seriously, does your side have any other than a defend unrestricted abortion to the death? Because I don't see any indication of it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:41 am

No problem Spinner,

You track the indictments and prosecutions of the Dems and I will handle the Repub side.

Why is it that during the last eight years that the Repubs had so many legal corruption problems.
Did the Bush Justice Department decide to single out Republicans? :rofl:
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:03 pm

I think that the way the naional media has been handleing the Dems this time around is rubbing off on our Greenies. Ignore the 800 poung gorilla in the dems room and focus everything on the opposition.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:48 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:Why is it that during the last eight years that the Repubs had so many legal corruption problems.
Did the Bush Justice Department decide to single out Republicans? :rofl:
Compared to the Clinton's they had little trouble, but that was because the Clintons were pursued by a number of independent councils. Dems killed that law ASAP. Did the Democrats have trouble from Justice department investigations? I don't recall that they did.

This just shows that the Republicans don't tolerate criminals even if they have an R after their name or send in large campaign contributions. If they were as you generally describe them, the Republicans would NOT have had criminal problems. That was basically my point of describing all the Democrats that had MAJOR criminal problems that are not only not in jail, they remained and most still remain in office. The Republicans that have committed serious crimes are not in office and in many case they are in jail where they belong. You don't see the difference. Neither party is perfect, but we do a far better job policing our own. You don't even try to do anything but defend them. Generically you say you are for punishing all criminals, but somehow the specific of the case against the Democrats always has justifying circumstances :eek: :thumbsdown:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16201
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Tom Phillips* » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:10 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: This just shows that the Republicans don't tolerate criminals even if they have an R after their name ... the Democrats that had MAJOR criminal problems that are not only not in jail, they remained and most still remain in office.


The Republicans generally do tolerate criminal activity in Democrats. For Republicans, hurting someone's feelings is enough to force them to give up power.

For Democrats, Felonies are ignored; Crimes are resume-enhancers.
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Postby rmh » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:14 pm

Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA)-naval aviator, Viet Nam War ace, Congressman, convicted felon currently in prison

Gerry Studds (D-MA)-professional politician, underage page molester, re-elected over and over
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby Tom Phillips* » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:14 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:Special prosecutor to investigate U.S. attorney firings.


Ha ha! That is so funny. It's a perfect demonstration of the double standard in politics and media reporting.

Clinton fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. Attorneys General when he entered office in 1993. As I remember, there were 93 of them.

EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Then he installed "friendlies."

What a joke.
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Internet Search on Clinton Fires Attorneys General

Postby Tom Phillips* » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:17 pm

Ha, I just did an internet search to see if my memory was correct.

It was.

Let that be a lesson. :smile:

1. Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign." CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

2. Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out Clinton's Firings
Brit Hume led his Tuesday night Grapevine segment by scolding his media colleagues for how "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993." Hume explained how that was not noted, "even in passing, in front-page stories today in the New York Times and the Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject."
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:36 pm

Well Tom,

If the judges were not improperly fired than the Bush team has nothing to worry about. :rofl:
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby rmh » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:39 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:Well Tom,

If the judges were not improperly fired than the Bush team has nothing to worry about. :rofl:


Not judges, US Attorneys who serve "at the pleasure of the President". A little impeachment hearing was held back in the 1860's that should have settled it.
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby Tom Phillips* » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:07 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:If the judges were not improperly fired than the Bush team has nothing to worry about.


Well, if Republicans had any cajones or if the media were fair, they wouldn't have anything to worry about. Unfortunately, neither of those two circumstances exist, so they'll have to put up with the little dogs yapping at their heels for a while. Nothing will come of it, but many people, especially Democrats like yourself will be fascinated with the little dog noise.
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests