| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Comments:
<0> yeah they, the media's gotten their testicles back and challenged this administration finally
<1> BLiZZiL, well the issue is Plame
<2> all we know now is he finger pointed at Bush
<3> o rly?
<0> yeah rly
<3> the media has finally taken on thier own plight?
<4> A little heat helps some get there minds and statements in line
<1> BLiZZiL, no, the finger isn't pointed at Bush, even if you want it to be. TROLL warning #2.
<3> the media is pwnt.
<5> I dont understand the significance of this leak. Is bush gunna be impeached or not? If not then who cares really. He cant run for reelection so how is it even an important issue?
<3> its a theatrical show
<2> TheTailor: Im seriously not trying to troll, what do you wish to call this admission by Libby?
<3> just get ready for hillary
<3> vote everyone but her
<4> xtor read back, and you will see the reason for all of this...I will post it for you
<3> sheel still get in
<1> xtor, as Bush didnb't do anything wrong, no, he won't be impeached and in fact nothing will happen at all, as with Rove.
<0> it's just more proof of what this administration did to sell this war and it needs to come out in the open so the public can make up their own mind and vote accordingly in 2006
<3> 51% - 50%
<3> close call
<6> morning Tailor ;)
<5> rond just a one liner please...if you could. Whats at stake here?
<3> concede?
<4> [18:22] <+BLiZZiL> Well, hopefully they can attach themselves to something juicy and get him into some real trouble
<1> BLiZZiL, there isn't an admission by LIbby, get a transcript.
<4> xtor that says it all
<7> Blizzil: leakers are people who leak info to hurt the administration
<2> Thats my personally my feeling
<7> spies
<7> ect
<8> ThePixies... "this administration" isn't up for re-election in 2006 or ever again.
<1> BLiZZiL, ane you are trolling, without facts. Once more and you are out of here.
<0> no glock but the house and senate are
<5> rond so an impeachment then eh
<8> ThePixies... so you'll blame your congressman for something Bush did?
<4> xtor some will take just about anything
<8> o_O
<3> they will never impeach bush
<5> I hope you all realize that presidents are above the law especially if they are bushes
<2> I dont want to be devoiced so I'll just be quiet
<6> O_0
<4> good choice
<3> maybe rewrite the law and give him 4 more
<0> nope, feingolds been trying to hold the administration responsible so i'm happy with him
<3> impeach..no
<1> BLiZZiL, stick to the facts and you have no problem.
<2> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/index.html
<2> go there
<9> Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
<2> there is a link
<1> cia leak
<2> to what libby said
<9> --- nixon
<1> read your own post
<3> it was a planned leak
<3> jacko trial
<0> other congressman absolutely, the reps have been following them the entire way and they need to be held responsible
<0> nice nixon tRrFX
<3> watch what justice is served
<0> the dems need to win so there's an investigation
<8> ThePixies... you don't get to vote for other congressmen.
<0> i don't want impeachment really though i think it's warranted
<8> Just yours.
<3> both sides are bought and paid for
<2> would be good for the dems
<0> i just want to see an investigation done
<0> no glock but i can help get other congressmen elected
<3> we need to check our payroll and conduct a PUBLIC investigation
<3> anyone involved with govt will be biased an pwnt
<0> cheney will be gone too especially if its over the plame/nie incident
<1> BLiZZiL, this hasn't anything to do sith Plame ".. As part of that effort, he told a grand jury, Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the release of portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.."
<3> lol
<3> cheney is bigger than bush
<0> get rid of bush and the administration is dead in the water
<2> True, Tailor
<3> these ppl have broken so many laws
<7> ThePixies: doubtful. I personally think democrats are lucky Bush is so nice. Cheney would rip this hissing apart
<0> cheney would have absolutely no pull
<3> u think thewy will be punished now?
<3> not gonna happen
<2> Bush said in 2004 he wouldnt tolerate leakers ...
<0> publius, anything cheney tried would be watched from the instant he came into office
<2> which is whats weird
<1> Vap0r420, well actually they haven't broken any laws.
<10> so who leaked plames name? and where did they get it?
<3> according to his admin
<0> tailor, actually we don't if they have since there's been no investigation
<3> wich is like saddam on trial rguing his points
<0> we don't know if they have
<3> in a messed up retro
<8> BLiZZiL... well there's a big difference between leaking cl***ified information and decl***ifying information for release.
<6> thats unfortunate where admin was lost after 1st gulf war
<11> saddam trial is a joke..
<0> and who has the power to decl***ify info glock?
<1> ThePixies, in saying that you validate my point, no laws have been shown to be broken.
<0> not bush or cheney from what i've read
<0> tailor, not yet
<3> saddam will be vacationing with gorby
<0> we have enough circumstantial evidence to believe they have been
<7> ThePixies: they have been legal, albiet controversial. We don't convict people for looking bad in America. The American people can sense a political attack...the democrats are making thins worse
<8> ThePixies... Bush can't decl***ify information that's part of the Branch he heads?
<7> imo
<8> o_O
<9> "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation." -- Nixon quoting Lincoln
<1> ThePixies You might break the law today, but I won't accuse you of it.
<3> lol
<6> ;)
<3> american way
<6> no
<0> that's why we need investigations tailor
<0> and that depends glock
<6> thats absurd
<0> i don't know the exact answer to that
<3> by whom
<3> kissinger?
<8> You say "investigations" and republicans hear "free campaign ads"
<1> ThePixies, if they need an investigation they can do one.
<8> Not even free... tax paid.
<9> kissinger what?
<6> justice is revealed by the right team
<0> who can, the administration?
<3> they appoint thier ppl to investigate
<6> judge and jury
<3> whod they find
<0> yeah like that will happen
<3> zach
<10> tRrFX which part of the constitution is that suppose to be authorized in? i dont recall reading anything to that effect
<6> that takes time
<3> he will not die
<6> you dont pick a jury and try it
<3> hell get a new face
<3> and home
<1> ThePixies, liberals can call for an investigation, but there's nothing there to call for one.
<3> its a huge scam
<6> u get to know that jury 1 by 1
<3> zacha
<3> were is osama
<0> tailor, there is when it comes to plame/nie and wiretapping
<3> now we found saddam
<0> and that's all that feingold is trying to do with his censure motion
<3> and now iran is terror
<0> the dems don't have subpeona power so they can't call an investigation
<3> i mean
<2> All it shows *******IF****** true and he Authorized the leak is a little quandry from when in October 2004 he attacked leakers
<1> ThePixies, then why aren't the libs calling for an investigation?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
presario R3000 loose power cable
sqlexpress remote query timeout
wettoast girl
#visualbasic
eaccelerator undefined symbol: empty_string
#beginner
#goal
scan macadress
#computers
|
|