Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6783
This very clearly illustrates the heavy left bias in American media

that the dismisal of 93 ( and another 30 over clintons 8 years in oiffice ) never gets a mention.

There were threads debating the left bias,

Now you have solid proof.

I think we will see evidence of selective amnesia on their part.

If they lie to you once its their fualt, after that its your.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-29 07:52:22)

jonsimon
Member
+224|6924
Waaaah waaah waaah, the media is biased against me. Waaah someone call the waahmbulence. I'm sick of this "the media is biased towards everything I am against!" What are you, conspiracy nuts? Did the media fly planes into the WTC?
dsouth
Member
+5|6815
Lets see if Hunter/Jumper is on to something:

1993: 
  Clinton appoints new US A's replacing all of  GHW Bush US A's.
  Media apparently carries lots of whiny articles about how unfair it is when
     Democrats replace Republican appointees.

2001: 
  GW Bush appoints new US A's, replacing all of Clinton's
     (see press release here:  http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm)
  Media says nothing about it.

2006:
  Bush replaces 8 of the US Attorneys he appointed in 2001.
  Media says nothing about it.

2007:
  Some of the 8 the Republican US A's tell the story of their firing to Newspapers.
  Media reports on it, scandal starts.

Yup, looks like a clear case of Media BIAS -- solid proof that the media only reports when *Republicans* are doing the whining.  [Hey, not saying that it's always that way, but in this case the reporting bias is clearly leaning to the right -- or was up until recently.]

Sadly,  this appears to be the result of a clumsy cover up (telling the US A's that they were fired "for cause" rather than just saying "we wanted new blood").  US A's serve "at the discretion of the president", so the AG didn't need to give *any* reason for appointing replacements.  Had the administration just STFU and made no comment, there'd be no story here.  As it is it may still blow over, though that looks a little less likely since the AG was caught being less that truthful.  That's why a lot of the voices criticizing the AG are Republicans. 

Final note:  Please, for the love of god, stop using the "Clinton fired 93 US A's" bullpucky.  New administrations *appoint* new US A's who serve at the discretion of the president (meaning 4-8 years).  If it was wrong when Clinton did it in 1993, it would also be wrong when GW Bush did *exactly the same thing* in 2001.  Using made-up crap when you argue doesn't help the Republicans look better -- it just makes you look ignorant.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7201|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

The_Mob_Returns wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Your point?
Wow, if you don't get the point you haven't heard much, if any, news lately.
Yes, I've clearly been living in a cage.  How can I not be constantly watching streaming news from the US?
Then what's the problem? Now you know, so situation resolved.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6783
Thanks for backing me up. The whole point is

"It isn't wrong and isn't illegal they don't have to answer or explain "

and we barley heard about it in 93 and we didn't care. Though one AG was looking into "white water " and his replacement was a "friend of bills " another AG was prosecuting Rostenkowski for a million dollar plus fraud scheme. Now its top story every day with supenas threatened like its some scandal. It just isn't.

I wish these people would get down to the business at hand instead of creating more bureaucracy and special committees at tax payers expense. Why don't they do something about these companies that Spam and put spyware on our computers that force us to spend our dollars buying Anti spyware that goes out of date in 6 months for instance. That I would like.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6958|Global Command

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Thanks for backing me up. The whole point is

"It isn't wrong and isn't illegal they don't have to answer or explain "

and we barley heard about it in 93 and we didn't care. Though one AG was looking into "white water " and his replacement was a "friend of bills " another AG was prosecuting Rostenkowski for a million dollar plus fraud scheme. Now its top story every day with supenas threatened like its some scandal. It just isn't.

I wish these people would get down to the business at hand instead of creating more bureaucracy and special committees at tax payers expense. Why don't they do something about these companies that Spam and put spyware on our computers that force us to spend our dollars buying Anti spyware that goes out of date in 6 months for instance. That I would like.
Why?

By filling news stories with their inane fighting they distract us from the real issues and succeed in electing un-American assholes like George Bush.


Un-American you say?

Enforce the border of the united States or be guilty of treason.
dsouth
Member
+5|6815
They tried to answer and explain, and lied in the process.  Like watergate and monicagate, the botched cover-up is what got them in trouble not the firings.  "STFU, it's not just a good idea, it's the law."  :-)

Unfotunately for Gonzales, it's also come out that he was protecting child molesters in Texas, so he's probably getting his resume in order as we speak.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print … E_ID=54861

[You know you're screwed when you're a Republican and WorldNetDaily is running a negative story about you.]
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6783
I think your just screwd when you a Republican period. Its better to wear your hat tilted sideways and say You can see the Emperors clothes just like everyone else untill you have enuff money to retire.
dsouth
Member
+5|6815
Sorry Jumper, lost you there --- last I checked the "emperor" was a republican.

Though I would agree with you on a slightly different point -- actual conservative, small government, intellectual republicans are a dying breed.  Instead we have a bunch of theocons who abandoned most of the conservative principals to curry favor with evangelicals and rednecks.  Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter have done far more damage to the party than anything else -- but it's always lucrative to cater to the mouth-breathers.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6783
Did some one really type " Whaaaa whaaaa Whaaa " did I really see that as a retort ?

ATG wrote:

Un-American you say?

Enforce the border of the united States or be guilty of treason.
Are we pretending the Border only became a problem after the year 2000? That it wasn't always in that state. That kinda reminds me of the Homeless plight Which led every nightly news story in 1991 It magically became a non issue on Nov. 8th

dsouth wrote:

last I checked the "emperor" was a republican.
I don't think you are completly familiar with the Children's tale.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-30 06:22:18)

The_Mob_Returns
Member
+72|7151|Indianapolis, IN
I love starting a topic and then just reading the responses to it.

And I agree with you:

dsouth wrote:

actual conservative, small government, intellectual republicans are a dying breed
Imagine the democrats of old, that is the party I am waiting to return, but alas that will never happen.
And when I mean democrats, I mean at least 150 years ago.

I love our media.  (and that is not sarcastically!)
13rin
Member
+977|6908

Bubbalo wrote:

Your point?
Why did that not surprise me?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7151|Eastern PA
It also bears mentioning that Reagan and Bush Sr. fired the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms. This is a normal part of the process for political appointees. Where the current president deviates from the pattern is that he dismissed his own (Republican) appointees midway through his term. That is what is causing the scandal.

Even Kyle Sampson (Alberto Gonzalez's chief of staff) recognizes the midterm firings as unprecedented:
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6802|Kyiv, Ukraine
Look, nobody cares that every president since the beginning of...well, forever...has replaced the USA's when they took office.  CLINTON did it!  That makes the Democrats a bunch of hypocrits! You can talk all you want about how every Republican prez has done it too, but it doesn't take away the fact that CLINTON did it!  You can even try to argue that its standard procedure under what is known as the "spoils system", but it doesn't matter because Clinton, imperator of all things evil, did it!  That damned liberal media covered it all up too, barely reporting on another important event of what happens when a president takes over office for the first time.  They probably didn't even mention that Bush I's cabinet was FIRED (oh, the gall!) and replaced with people Clinton liked...

Yep, I'm so happy we have Fox News and talk radio pundits now to tell us who REALLY won elections and all those stories we missed before while the left-wing conspiracy was rocking.
[/sarcasm]

I really tried to like right-wingnuts, I honestly tried.  I still don't hate them, I just pity them at how gullible and easily they can be used as tools to spread inane talking points and perpetuate stupidity as handed down from on-high...how they can believe anything so long as it can be said in a 15-second or less sound bite, absolutely devoid of context or even facts.

What is being established in this particular scandal is that the 8 (and more are coming forward) US attorneys that were loyal Republicans second to being actually ethical, dragged their feet in an election year in scandals involving Democratic candidates and voter issues that Rove blamed for causing losses in Congress.  They were then fired for "performance reasons" (this is where Gonzo fucked up). 

Now, how would you feel being a patriotic American, an ethical attorney, and also a loyal Republican soldier, doing your job, and then were let go for "performance reasons" in the middle of your term.  Of course they didn't like it, it effects their CAREER.  Basically they were told they were lazy and incompetent, when they knew otherwise, and politically chopped up for not pursuing a partisan agenda in their office.

THEN Gonzo, when questioned, lied about it.  Of course that makes people curious and raises eyebrows...and...gasp...gets media attention.  Now, several conclusions from these firings can be drawn, none of them good, which is why the Dems are smelling blood.  The 3000 pages of email released so far has given some ammunition for each of these conclusions:

1)  They were fired as punishment for not pursuing partisan agenda in an election year.
2)  They were fired for having a track record which included investigations into Republican corruption.
3)  They were fired for on-going investigations into Republican corruption.
4)  They were fired to be replaced by more "loyal" soldiers, and, as magically amended in the Patriot Act II, they no longer need congressional approval to do so.
5)  They were fired as a distraction for other scandals to tie up investigators, and Cheney/Rove will throw Gonzo under the bus to save themselves when the time is right.
6)  They were fired to keep them from going forward with ethics complaints to congress, which some of them had filed, from being harrassed by Republican congress members trying to push them to prosecute Democrats.
7)  They were fired because of their record of integrity, which would be a bad thing for the Repugs if more scandals come out later.

I'm sorry, that took a paragraph or two to explain...maybe we should stick to "Clinton did it!", its easier on the brain.

PS to the OP:  Half the names on that list are immediately recognizable neo-con propogandists...Graham, Savage, and Limbaugh jump right out and bite you and I'm sure a little digging will uncover the credentials of the rest are equally "unreliable".

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-04-05 05:14:25)

rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6989

The_Mob_Returns wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Your point?
Wow, if you don't get the point you haven't heard much, if any, news lately.


Clinton's administration fires all 93 attorneys...no news.
Bush's administration fires 8 attorneys...endless stream of news.

Get my point?
8 attornies who were activeley investigating white house inproprieties
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6783
People will try and put together an argument with a "legalese feel " yet need to stoop and use terms and insults like
"right-wingnuts"
" I just pity them at how gullible and easily they can be used as tools"
" inane talking points"
"perpetuate stupidity "
" scandal "
" fucked up"
"maybe we should stick to "Clinton did it!", its easier on the brain"
"Repugs"
"partisan agenda "

All unquantifable terms, High on haterd, low on substance and usefull if you cant back up your argument...

so the vitriol they hold really tips their hand. A little too biased to be trusted, To bad their is no way to measure the terms like gullible or inane. I would like to see some people weigh in lol It would be fun to see who really qualifies as partisan.
1)  not pursuing partisan agenda in an election year.
unfounded accusation
2)  having a track record which included investigations into Republican corruption.
unfounded accusation
3)  on-going investigations into Republican corruption.
unfounded accusation
4)  replaced by more "loyal" soldiers, and, as magically amended in the Patriot Act II, they no longer need congressional approval to do so.
unfounded accusation legal and recommended
5)   a distraction for other scandals to tie up investigators, and Cheney/Rove will throw Gonzo under the bus to save themselves when the time is right.
unfounded acusation
6)   to keep them from going forward with ethics complaints to congress, which some of them had filed, from being harassed by Republican congress members trying to push them to prosecute Democrats.
unfounded accusation
7)   because of their record of integrity, which would be a bad thing for the Repugs if more scandals come out later.
unfounded acusation


The simple fact is, you can accuse anyone of anything. 

Remember "the vast right-wing conspiracy " unfounded accusation. We all found out it wasn't true, what really happened, but no one ever was held to task by the US News media.

If you have "loyal pundits"  ( not my term ) in the Media you can create any scandal you want and not have to worry about comeuppance.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-04-05 15:53:26)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard