Clinton Legacy: "a presidency about nothing" ie S

Post by **Joe Schad** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:18 pm

Joe,
The US Treasury has shelled out over $300 Billion to pay for the war in Iraq,...money that has gone to the troops and the MIC supporting the troops.
Marco: That's $300 billion of unbudgeted, borrowed money!!!!!!! by the BORROW AND SPEND REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP!!!

You are saying that it can be moral to start a war, but immoral not to "pay for it". I would answer that we ARE PAYING FOR IT, as evidenced by the money leaving the US Treasury.

So, to follow your reasoning, it is not immoral to start a war, but it is immoral to deficit spend to pay for it.......do I have that right?

MARCO: Answer NO, you do NOT HAVE IT RIGHT! Read the question again.

If so, ... which they did.

Marco+

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:18 am

OK Joe,
You have completely lost me on this one.....care to rephrase your point?

Post by **Joe Schad** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:41 pm

Marco,

NO

Joe

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:07 am

Just for the record, Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys....the liberal media said.....NOTHING. Dems said NOTHING.

Bush fires 8 US Attorneys.....liberal media and Dems are demanding hearings, resignations, and possible impeachment.

Notice any inconsistency here? Could this latest "outrage" be politically motivated? For you clueless libs out there, the answer is YES.

Marco

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:32 am

Marco Zee wrote:Just for the record, Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys....the liberal media said.....NOTHING. Dems said NOTHING.

Bush fires 8 US Attorneys.....liberal media and Dems are demanding hearings, resignations, and possible impeachment.

Notice any inconsistency here? Could this latest "outrage" be politically motivated? For you clueless libs out there, the answer is YES.

Marco

Marco, marco, marco--there you go again reinventing reality--do doctors have unlimited access to whatever drugs they want?

All presidents customarily reappoint attorneys when they there is a changeover in administration. However, what the Bushatrons have done--and what upsets BOTH dems and Repubes--is that these dismissals appear to be a "midstream" dismissals without any real connection to performance reviews. The implication of this is obvious--that politics can be used to influence judicial behavior and litigation outcomes.

Now as much as this kind of abuse of power may appeal to you and the Bushies, this does rise to the level of a constitutional showdown and hopefully the hole-in-the-wall gang will be put in their place.

marc