BillsNYC Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 SOURCES: BUSH TO NAME WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ALBERTO GONZALES TO BE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL **Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more There goes the Rudy idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 SOURCES: BUSH TO NAME WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ALBERTO GONZALES TO BE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL **Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more There goes the Rudy idea... 111404[/snapback] What, there aren't any white people available for the job? Just another token appointment, huh Liberals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 What, there aren't any white people available for the job? Just another token appointment, huh Liberals? 111408[/snapback] Its like the NFL..you have to interview at least one minority in hiring process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Its like the NFL..you have to interview at least one minority in hiring process 111445[/snapback] God I hope he is a Hispanic Catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 10, 2004 Author Share Posted November 10, 2004 Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas and raised in Houston. He is a graduate of Texas public schools, Rice University, and Harvard Law School. Gonzales served in the United States Air Force between 1973 and 1975, and attended the United States Air Force Academy between 1975 and 1977. He is married to Rebecca and is the father of three sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 God I hope he is a Hispanic Catholic 111446[/snapback] So being a member of your nutbar religion makes him OK? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas and raised in Houston. He is a graduate of Texas public schools, Rice University, and Harvard Law School. Gonzales served in the United States Air Force between 1973 and 1975, and attended the United States Air Force Academy between 1975 and 1977. He is married to Rebecca and is the father of three sons. 111454[/snapback] He is CATHOLIC..praise the LORD...there is hope for the administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 So being a member of your nutbar religion makes him OK? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 111457[/snapback] He could be Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Buddist..just not another member of the Christian Right....US law and the Bible..not a good mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 He could be Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Buddist..just not another member of the Christian Right....US law and the Bible..not a good mix 111463[/snapback] He can be Catholic, but as long as he is not Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 He can be Catholic, but as long as he is not Christian? 111466[/snapback] Well by definition..a catholic is a christian..just not the conservative side of christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Well by definition..a catholic is a christian..just not the conservative side of christianity 111477[/snapback] Now that sounds silly. There are plenty of conservative Catholics and probably a lot of them voted for Bush. Being raised Catholic and going to Catholic schools I can say from experience it's PLENTY conservative. One thing it doesn't do is pay much attention to politics. The Protestant Christian Coalition is a very politically-oriented machine. Or perhaps it's that the Republican party is a conservative Protestant idealogically-driven machine. I'd even venture to pare it down to Southern Baptists, which are almost a breed unto themselves, although they are starting to splinter now too.... In any event this guy had been mentioned as a possible Supreme but he is SO conservative that the moderate Republicans might have trouble with him. Bush isn't going to risk getting Borked if he can help it. My litmus test is whether he is as afraid of calico cats as Ashcroft. If not, he's an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Well by definition..a catholic is a christian..just not the conservative side of christianity 111477[/snapback] So, they can be Christian, as long as they are not conservatives. Again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 So, they can be Christian, as long as they are not conservatives. Again: 111486[/snapback] I have no problem with Christian in our government..but if they begin to do their job based on their beliefs in the bible vice the constitution..I worry. I agree there are still some very conservative Catholics...my experience where i grew up..I was raised around very liberal thinking catholics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I have no problem with Christian in our government..but if they begin to do their job based on their beliefs in the bible vice the constitution..I worry. I agree there are still some very conservative Catholics...my experience where i grew up..I was raised around very liberal thinking catholics... 111496[/snapback] To continue KRC's thoughts... ...so they're fine as long as you grew up with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 To continue KRC's thoughts... ...so they're fine as long as you grew up with them? 111500[/snapback] .......or slept with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 To continue KRC's thoughts... ...so they're fine as long as you grew up with them? 111500[/snapback] No i simply believe very strongly in separation of church and state....oil and water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Alberto Gonzales? Really? ARRIBA! ARRIBA! ANDALE! ANDALE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Alberto Gonzales? Really? ARRIBA! ARRIBA! ANDALE! ANDALE! 111539[/snapback] Alberto, not 'Speedy'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Alberto, not 'Speedy'... 111611[/snapback] guess you don't get the joke...too bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Alberto Gonzales? Really? ARRIBA! ARRIBA! ANDALE! ANDALE! 111539[/snapback] As WB is no longer airing Speedy Gonzales, thanks for helping spread the ethnic stereotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Me, and my convervative friends biggest fears are coming true: People even crazier then Ashcroft are being appointed to top level positions. Lets look at Gonzalez's list of accomplisments (according to the "fair and balanced" republican, I mean fox news): - Gonzales has been at the forefront of developing White House policy about detaining terror suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts. - He wrote the February 2002 memo that allowed Bush to claim the right to waive international treaties when it comes to prisoners of war who do not represent other countries. - Some administration officials say that the choice of Gonzales is a "concern" to them because the Justice Department should have some independence from the White House, and Gonzales is "weak" and "controlled" by the White House. - Gonzales also has served as a partner in a Houston law firm that represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron Corp. But wait, Fox News doesn't mention one good thing about this guy! Now lets review why this is a bad choice for Attorney General. We claim we are the leaders of the free world, the rest of the world views us as the leaders of the free world. We claim to treat everyone with respect and believe that all humans were created equal, and the rest of the world views us as stating that as well. Then we appoint a guy to be the attorney general who wants to detainee prisoners without rights. Its very clear here: We are sending mixed signals, and unfortunately actions speak louder then words. Want to know why people hate us? Its because of this type of hypocritical stevestojan. Oh yeah, I mentioned the lawyer thing because I think its funny that Bush was bitching about John Edwards being a trial lawyer then appoints this clown who was at one point part of the firm that represented Enron. Not real relevent but funny nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Me, and my convervative friends biggest fears are coming true: People even crazier then Ashcroft are being appointed to top level positions. Lets look at Gonzalez's list of accomplisments (according to the "fair and balanced" republican, I mean fox news): - Gonzales has been at the forefront of developing White House policy about detaining terror suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts. - He wrote the February 2002 memo that allowed Bush to claim the right to waive international treaties when it comes to prisoners of war who do not represent other countries. - Some administration officials say that the choice of Gonzales is a "concern" to them because the Justice Department should have some independence from the White House, and Gonzales is "weak" and "controlled" by the White House. - Gonzales also has served as a partner in a Houston law firm that represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron Corp. But wait, Fox News doesn't mention one good thing about this guy! Now lets review why this is a bad choice for Attorney General. We claim we are the leaders of the free world, the rest of the world views us as the leaders of the free world. We claim to treat everyone with respect and believe that all humans were created equal, and the rest of the world views us as stating that as well. Then we appoint a guy to be the attorney general who wants to detainee prisoners without rights. Its very clear here: We are sending mixed signals, and unfortunately actions speak louder then words. Want to know why people hate us? Its because of this type of hypocritical stevestojan. Oh yeah, I mentioned the lawyer thing because I think its funny that Bush was bitching about John Edwards being a trial lawyer then appoints this clown who was at one point part of the firm that represented Enron. Not real relevent but funny nonetheless. 111750[/snapback] excellent post Bluefire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Oh yeah, I mentioned the lawyer thing because I think its funny that Bush was bitching about John Edwards being a trial lawyer then appoints this clown who was at one point part of the firm that represented Enron. Not real relevent but funny nonetheless. 111750[/snapback] If it's not relevant, why bring it up? Obviously, it had some relevance to you, if at least to introduce a hot flash word into the debate, which has nothing to do with his qualifications as AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Me, and my convervative friends biggest fears are coming true: People even crazier then Ashcroft are being appointed to top level positions. Lets look at Gonzalez's list of accomplisments (according to the "fair and balanced" republican, I mean fox news): - Gonzales has been at the forefront of developing White House policy about detaining terror suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts. - He wrote the February 2002 memo that allowed Bush to claim the right to waive international treaties when it comes to prisoners of war who do not represent other countries. - Some administration officials say that the choice of Gonzales is a "concern" to them because the Justice Department should have some independence from the White House, and Gonzales is "weak" and "controlled" by the White House. - Gonzales also has served as a partner in a Houston law firm that represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron Corp. But wait, Fox News doesn't mention one good thing about this guy! Now lets review why this is a bad choice for Attorney General. We claim we are the leaders of the free world, the rest of the world views us as the leaders of the free world. We claim to treat everyone with respect and believe that all humans were created equal, and the rest of the world views us as stating that as well. Then we appoint a guy to be the attorney general who wants to detainee prisoners without rights. Its very clear here: We are sending mixed signals, and unfortunately actions speak louder then words. Want to know why people hate us? Its because of this type of hypocritical stevestojan. Oh yeah, I mentioned the lawyer thing because I think its funny that Bush was bitching about John Edwards being a trial lawyer then appoints this clown who was at one point part of the firm that represented Enron. Not real relevent but funny nonetheless. 111750[/snapback] Somewhere in the Constitution is the phrase: "Only the truly innocent deserve representation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Alberto Gonzales? Really? ARRIBA! ARRIBA! ANDALE! ANDALE! 111539[/snapback] Paco must be thrilled!!! Where is he anyway, setting off fireworks to celebrate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 - He wrote the February 2002 memo that allowed Bush to claim the right to waive international treaties when it comes to prisoners of war who do not represent other countries. 111750[/snapback] Technically, such combattants aren't covered by international treaty - they can't be, since they by definition belong to no country that's a signator of the treaties. And even if they were...a goodly amount of them, were they covered by the Geneva Convention, would be subject to summary execution anyway as non-uniformed civilian agents provocateur. Although, to be honest, it's not even that cut-and-dried. But my interpretation is certainly a valid one, and has been for at least 60 years. That's just the way the treaties were written, that's no fault of Gonzales'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 - Gonzales also has served as a partner in a Houston law firm that represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron Corp. Uh, do you have any idea how many law firms, accounting firms and other professional organizations 'represent' a company as big as Enron? Are you suggesting that anyone who was a partner in one of those organizations is complicit in the Enron scandals? Was Enron even one of Gonzales' CLIENTS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Technically, such combattants aren't covered by international treaty - they can't be, since they by definition belong to no country that's a signator of the treaties. And even if they were...a goodly amount of them, were they covered by the Geneva Convention, would be subject to summary execution anyway as non-uniformed civilian agents provocateur. Although, to be honest, it's not even that cut-and-dried. But my interpretation is certainly a valid one, and has been for at least 60 years. That's just the way the treaties were written, that's no fault of Gonzales'. 111767[/snapback] Facts suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 - Some administration officials say that the choice of Gonzales is a "concern" to them because the Justice Department should have some independence from the White House, and Gonzales is "weak" and "controlled" by the White House. 111750[/snapback] Isn't Justice in the Executive Branch? Are you advocating indepence of a department from its CEO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Isn't Justice in the Executive Branch? Are you advocating indepence of a department from its CEO? 111798[/snapback] Err, Justice is the Judicial Branch, I don't exactly understand what you are trying to get at here. The Attorney General represents the US Government. That is why he is part of ht exeuctive branch. If you meant the Department of Justice, then yes that is part of the executive branch. Let me give you an example from FOX News (I can't believe I am agreeing with them so much about Gonzales). You remember that CIA case about the leaked name Valerie Plame? The Justice Department are the ones responsible for the grand jury probe into whether someone at the White House committed any wrongdoings. However, the Justice Department reports to the White House. Big conflict on interest there, and the Attorney General should be allowed to be kept somewhat apart in investigations like that. If it's not relevant, why bring it up? Obviously, it had some relevance to you, if at least to introduce a hot flash word into the debate, which has nothing to do with his qualifications as AG. 111761[/snapback] It was relevant as far as Bush making fun of Edwards for being a trial lawyer then supporting a Lawyer that represented Enron. I was drawing a parallel here, and I stated it had nothing to do with his qualifications as AG, just showing hypocracy by Bush. Somewhere in the Constitution is the phrase: "Only the truly innocent deserve representation." 111763[/snapback] Somewhere else is the phrase: "We shouldn't expect more from the leaders of our country then we get and we don't have the right to B word when we don't like it." Technically, such combattants aren't covered by international treaty - they can't be, since they by definition belong to no country that's a signator of the treaties. And even if they were...a goodly amount of them, were they covered by the Geneva Convention, would be subject to summary execution anyway as non-uniformed civilian agents provocateur. Although, to be honest, it's not even that cut-and-dried. But my interpretation is certainly a valid one, and has been for at least 60 years. That's just the way the treaties were written, that's no fault of Gonzales'. 111767[/snapback] While thats true, you have to realize that other countries in the world don't view it that way, especially the terrorist groups that are going after us. It might not be Gonzales' fault that it was written that way, but it sure is his and the rest of the administration's fault for entertaining the idea and taking it a step further by using the idea. Like I said before, the Terrorist groups and other countries see us as a nation that proclaims we treat everyone with respect, and that all people were created equal. By putting into motion this and other similar arguments, we proclaim to them that we are just the opposite and are hypocrites. This jsut adds fuel to their fire. Its not a problem that its written that way, its a problem that we proclaim one thing then do another. Uh, do you have any idea how many law firms, accounting firms and other professional organizations 'represent' a company as big as Enron? Are you suggesting that anyone who was a partner in one of those organizations is complicit in the Enron scandals? Was Enron even one of Gonzales' CLIENTS??? 111771[/snapback] Haha, like I said, I was just pointing out the fact that Bush was so quick to attack one lawyer then he promotes another with connections to a "shady" law-firm to a top-level cabinet position. Just pointing out the Irony here. I was hoping people wouldn't take it more or less, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else with some of the people on this forum who can't read. I have to go now though, have some errands to do. No more monster replies from me for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Err, Justice is the Judicial Branch, I don't exactly understand what you are trying to get at here. 111838[/snapback] Learn something new everyday. Must have been an amendment I missed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Err, Justice is the Judicial Branch, I don't exactly understand what you are trying to get at here. The Attorney General represents the US Government. That is why he is part of ht exeuctive branch. If you meant the Department of Justice, then yes that is part of the executive branch. 111838[/snapback] To follow up, what other Justice would I be talking about, since I responded to your post talking about the independence of the AD in the Justice Department which reports to the President? Time for another Nyquil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Haha, like I said, I was just pointing out the fact that Bush was so quick to attack one lawyer then he promotes another with connections to a "shady" law-firm to a top-level cabinet position. Just pointing out the Irony here. I was hoping people wouldn't take it more or less, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else with some of the people on this forum who can't read. Irony? What irony? Kerry/Edwards were criticized for being hypocrites on health care because they trumpted health care "reform" while ignoring the problem of out of control lawsuits being perpetrated against the industry by ambulance chasers like Edwards. THAT is irony!! Again, what does that critique have to do with Gonzoles? Who says that Gonzoles' law firm is "shady" or did anything wrong? Have they been charged with any wrongdoing? Have any of their partners been disbared? You are advocating guilty by association here? You think that any partner in any law firm that did work for any company found to engage in wrongdoing should be punished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts