SD Jarhead Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The country's going to hell in a handbasket and what are Dem's going to focus on? Let's investigate Bush! Woo-Hoo! That'll get the lemming public attention off of us. C'mon, seriously folks...is this what you want them to do with their new found power? Just asking the Dems on the board. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washingt...amp;oref=slogin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The country's going to hell in a handbasket and what are Dem's going to focus on? Let's investigate Bush! Woo-Hoo! That'll get the lemming public attention off of us. C'mon, seriously folks...is this what you want them to do with their new found power? Just asking the Dems on the board. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washingt...amp;oref=slogin I love the feigned outrage the wingnuts are espousing over stuff hasn't even happened yet and probably never will. You lost, get over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 While the next administration shouldn't be focused on digging through the Bush trash, there's more than enough evidence that the public was blatantly lied to (i.e. the warrantless wiretap program), massive power was given to the executive branch via false interpretation of the constitution, signing statements, other legislation, etc., and it's very likely that many laws were broken in the process. Gauging the relative damage is probably the right thing to do under the circumstances, but not at the expense of fixing the economy and other pressing issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I say let them investigate The more time Congress spends investigating Bush, the less time they have to think of different ways to spend other people's money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The country's going to hell in a handbasket and what are Dem's going to focus on? Let's investigate Bush! Woo-Hoo! That'll get the lemming public attention off of us. C'mon, seriously folks...is this what you want them to do with their new found power? Just asking the Dems on the board. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washingt...amp;oref=slogin I think you're failing to see the forest through the trees. By investigating Bush, they're setting precedent for accountability, something I'm for REGARDLESS OF THE PARTY/PRESIDENT. Now, unless you want the Obama liberal communist Muslims to run as unchecked as Bush, you should be in favor of this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 While the next administration shouldn't be focused on digging through the Bush trash, there's more than enough evidence that the public was blatantly lied to (i.e. the warrantless wiretap program), massive power was given to the executive branch via false interpretation of the constitution, signing statements, other legislation, etc., and it's very likely that many laws were broken in the process. Gauging the relative damage is probably the right thing to do under the circumstances, but not at the expense of fixing the economy and other pressing issues. Mr. Wonderful will not roll back any of the wrongs rubber stamped by the dem's in congress. He and they will only add to those laws and take advantage of the ones already in place. Its the american way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Oh I agree it's terrible. It's not like Bush had sex in the Oval Office or anything. All he did was abuse power, start wars and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Oh I agree it's terrible. It's not like Bush had sex in the Oval Office or anything. All he did was abuse power, start wars and stuff like that. Hug a tree and Barney Frank can help you. Oh wait Barney is one of your heroes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 From the article. Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration. In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.” “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.” Got a question for you SDJ. What is worse, getting a BJ from an intern or circumventing the Constitution on purpose to spy on the American people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Got a question for you SDJ. What is worse, getting a BJ from an intern or circumventing the Constitution on purpose to spy on the American people? The BJ obviously. Sex is dirty and is something we all should feel guilty about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The BJ obviously. Sex is dirty and is something we all should feel guilty about. Well yeah, if they're fat and ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 From the article. Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration. In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.” “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.” Got a question for you SDJ. What is worse, getting a BJ from an intern or circumventing the Constitution on purpose to spy on the American people? Forget the BJ from an intern. Instead how about lying to a federal grand jury? (Clinton) It was found he did not circumvent the Constitution.(Bush) But it was proven he lied to the Grand Jury.(clinton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Forget the BJ from an intern. Instead how about lying to a federal grand jury? (Clinton) It was found he did not circumvent the Constitution.(Bush) But it was proven he lied to the Grand Jury.(clinton) Well yes you do have that. Ok, we've strayed away from the Bush thing so answer the question again. This time I'll ask if it's more serious than a lie to the Grand Jury. As Chris Rock said if it came between lying to a Grand Jury or telling his wife he'd cheated on her he'd lie to the Grand Jury. So is lying to the Grand Jury worse than lying to Congress over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts