aquapub

Yeah what possible relevance could there be to pointing out that every president since Ike has hired and fired political appointees for political reasons? Or that Clinton fired 93, or that he fired prosecutors who were investigating his crimes in Arkansas and replaced them with cronies...without anyone blinking an eye?

And I don't know what video you watched but Hannity clearly acknowledges in it that the Administration simply had someone else they wanted in some of those posts (which there is nothing wrong with-that's the nature of political appointments).

Political appointees are hired and fired at the SOLE DISCRETION of the president. He needs no explanations or reasons. There was nothing even remotely controversial or abnormal about this.

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

aquapub

Didn't you once call me a liar for capitalizing the first letter of your name?

Sorry, I think I'll wait for someone from planet Earth to get into a True Debate with, thank you.

bigsmitty

There really is no scandal here. US Attourneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Dismissing them is not a crime. If you have a problem with the law, change the law. Sure, it wasn't a great PR move, and it was probably just a partisan political charade, but it really has no relevence as to why they were let go. It does make one wonder why he resigned though.

__________________
"History teaches me that most bad government results from too much government"

---Thomas Jefferson

niftydrifty

nope, never did. how very Hannity-ish of you. I pointed out that you can't look at a screen and repeat to anyone else what is obviously there. it was evidence that you can't reproduce what you see. and likewise, you've just misrepresented what happened. it's no wonder you go on and on and on about how losers are somehow winners, and vice-versa.

translation: "I'm scared ****less of being made a fool of. I'd much rather continue to parrot wingnuts and use emoticons in place of arguments."

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

Billo_Really

Except that they lied about why they did it.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

aquapub

Actually what you did is baselessy claim that I cannot reproduce what I see...with zero examples or evidence...and then accuse me of being a liar for it-exactly like I said you did, and yes, correctly stating the facts is very "Hannity-ish."

Here's what you said (Immigration Race Quotas, post 83):



Like I said, sorry, I think I'll wait for someone from planet Earth to get into a True Debate with, thank you. And you can sace your little 5th-grade taunting for someone insecure enough to be manipulated by such drivel.

aquapub

There was conflicting testimony about a question that should never have been asked.

niftydrifty

LOL. you say "with zero examples or evidence." then you go right on to quote the example I gave!

uh .... DUH!

I didn't call you a liar. you're not a liar, because a liar intentionally deceives. you can't be a liar, if you have no idea about what the hell you're talking about. you can't intentionally deceive if your deception is inherent.

you lack the ability to look at information and reproduce it, just as i demonstrated. you don't know what a liar is. and you're obviously reluctant to enter into a true debate. why? because you're a worthless dumbass whom couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.

aquapub

Duh is right. Your claim was that I cannot reproduce what I see in debate. You provided zero examples or evidence. Then you ridiculously claimed that me capitalizing the first letter of my name was a demonstration of this inability. This is not an example of me not being able to reproduce what I see. It's an indication that I capitalize proper nouns.

This idiocy is exactly why I have zero interest wasting time on a True Debate with you...well that and the bipolar PMS trip you also went on later in this post.

Your exact words: "aquapub is about as honest as a two-headed nickel. I would trust him only about as far as I could throw him."

(Immigration Race Quotas, post 83)

Yes, you called me a liar, and now you are backpeddling.

And now you're contradicting yourself.

You're right. Me capitalizing the first letter of a person's name is proof that I cannot correctly interpret things.

I should sharpen my abilities so I can spew kindergarten taunts and smears like you.

Welcome to Earth.

Simon W. Moon

Moderator's Warning:

c'mon, please

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"