Story Comments
Posted by: Goppy 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look ... the whole PERSONALITY of the Neo-Conservative ideeologie is F*ck You, America ... we know what this nation needs ... it needs to be a MILITARY Nation ... working Hand-in-Hand with the Energy Industry.
This is the essence.
Don't yall get it? THATS WHY WE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES LIEK the Neo-Cons!
We liek their 'In Your Face' attitude towards America ... towards her citizens ... towards the American Soldier ... toward the Middle Class.
It's a new era! The Neo-Cons came to power to SUPPLANT the weakness of DEMOCRACY ... such as ...
- DISSENT
- HONEST GOVERMENT
- OPEN GOVERMENT
- INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
- A NON-POLITICIZED JUDICIARY
To Neo-Conservatives (and we Christian Conservatives agree) --- these five issues are great for those with a LIBURAL World View ... but that is is a Post 9/11 world.
Neo-Cons intend to use that event to eliminate the SOUL of the United States. To Neo-Cons ... a SOUL is an entry point for our enemies.
Which to Neo-Cons ... is everybody.
Reply-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just who in hell does that punk congressional committee think they are in summoning the great and powerful Rove. He answers to no government lackeys and answers to King George only. The Bushtapo does NOT answer to silly ass laws or provisos of that silly old piece of paper called The Constitution.
Fie on your paper, fie on your common laws, fie on all of you serfs. You WILL honor the divine right of kings! National security uber alles!
Rove has repeatedly stated that he'll talk if there is NO record kept, NO tape recording, and the talk is informal, non binding, and he can lie like a motherf*cker with no consequences. Now, what's wrong with a deal like that?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly, Teech!
All these Neo-Cons need is FOUR MORE YEARS to consolidate (infect) their ideeologie to accomplish their ULTIMATE goal ... UN-ACCOUNTABILITY.
All that needs to happen is to have Johnny 'Slick' McCain become the next presdient!
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teech, Rove was an employee of President Bush, not an elected official. He's protected by the term Executive Privilege. As I've mentioned before, if you want to change this and clearly define the rights of the President and his staff, then amend the Constitution. Your other comments are strictly ridiculous. If the President really was a king or dictator, you would have already been picked up by one of the blue party vans. I believe in Nazi German, the USSR, Cuba or Venezuela it's the fog and mist decree.
Reply-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I heard when Clinton was being investigated is "What is he trying to hide?" and the Supreme Court ruled that he had to give testimony. Now that the other party is being investigated it's Executive Privilege. Make up your mind. Executive Privilege does not overrule the investigation of a crime. The Republicans didn't quit until they got Clinton to make a false comment under oath. Now I would like to hear Karl under oath and see how many lies that he's told.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really think Clinton wasn't an honest politician. He made great sums of money trading in futures and other very risky investments. It's called insider trading by the way.
Also with the Global Crossing and Whitewater Development Corporation regulators were told to stand down when questions arose. Before you claim it was a Bush thing, this was well before he was in office.
Another problem besides the renting out of the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder, I think people didn't like the selling of pardons. Lots of pardons were issued in the final days of the Clinton White House. Many were to people who didn't deserve them. Some also question the convenient heart attacks and suicides that seem to follow the Clinton's.
I think the worst, the multiple payouts for claims of sexual misconduct. One okay, money grubber looking for a fast buck. 4-8 claims of assault and sex with a young intern in the Oval office, we seem to have a problem that needs help.
Reply-
Neutral
questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there is no executive priveledge in the constitution,its rather a gift from the supreme court
there r witnesses that have sworn under oath that rove was involved in the seiglman case,the current ag is obstructing justice by not bringing the contempt charges of the senate before a grande jury
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really think Clinton wasn't an honest politician.>>>>>
Given the climate of the past seven years, the death, the destruction, the lies, the law breaking, the Constistution trashing.....yours is an absurd remark!! Next to the current gang of thugs, Clinton is little lord fauntleroy! And you had best get your head around what they've done, and how it's affecting YOUR country! This "but but but but but but Clinton" crap is pathological!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL!
Little Lord Fauntleroy! I liek that.
Yes ... continuing the references to characters from fine literature ... if you had to measure the length of Clinton's nose and Goerge W. Bush's nose ... were each to reprise the role of Pinnochio ... Clinton's nose might shade his shoes ... but Gee Dub's nose would span three time zones.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Another problem besides the renting out of the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder, I think people didn't like the selling of pardons."
You better hold your breath pal, I will bet the ranch that you are fixing to see some real doozies right before Bush leaves - and Rove will be one of them.
By the way, EP ONLY APPLIES TO NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. Covering up of criminal acts doesn't fit in that category.
Reply -
Neutral
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you think Bush is? I'm just trying to see where your head is because if you think Clinton is dishonest (and I'm not disputing that) how could you not recognize the same to an even greater and extensive degree, in the present administration? That blows my mind!!
Reply -
Neutral
FSU92grad1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64,
lfergie, how's that ass-whoopin doin' for ya ?
Thanks BB64 for countering the "Rove Witch Hunt" which the libs love so much..As always they take something small and trivial and blow it way out of proportion...
They want SOOOoooooo bad what happen to "slick willy" to happen to Bush and colleagues...Pay back time ! And they will do just about anything to crucify anyone with a elephant or "R" by their name...
They cannot stand the fact that them and their party suck a$$...
Reply-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They want SOOOoooooo bad what happen to "slick willy" to happen to Bush and colleagues..."
Yeah maybe if Bush was getting blown regularly he wouldn't have needed to invade an oil rich Arab nation that didn't attack us or pose a significant threat to us. Maybe he could have stayed focused on bringing al Queda and the Taliban to justice(instead of letting them have a home base in Talibanistan). Hells-bells maybe he would have been focused enough to put a stop to the 9-11 attacks altogether.
Oh wait, you meant impeached but aquitted on all charges, nah, I rather see him leave office as the most disgrace American President of all time (that he is), and then face charges for his administrations crimes.
Reply -
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the love of Ol' Mrs. Mitchell! Clinton lied about who he screwed in his own home, and the Republicans cost the nation a young fortune over it and haven't gotten over it yet.
Bush's lies have cost us over 4000 American lives, trillions of dollars we don't have, the value of our reputation AND the value of our currency in foreign lands, untold personal expenses to private citizens due to the cost of oil. And these are the SMALL things compared to what he's done to our Constitution and laws with his oath-breaking. Get your head out of youe a$$, FSU. What is your degree? BS in Self-Deception?!?
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He made great sums of money trading in futures and other very risky investments. It's called insider trading by the way."
ROFLMAO, yes it is and why not tell us what the investigation found?? Oh yeah nothing. Damn how reality tends to blow your arguments away.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry neg'd by mistake. Your absolutely right, Rove committed crimes while acting in a government positions. The repugs seem to think its perfectly OK to claim executive privelege when there is clear evidence that they have violated the law yet see nothing wrong in invetistigating a presidents sex life when it clearly didnt effect his performance in the office nor did it violate any law. What would the din have been from the hAlpha crowd if CLinton claimed executive privelege.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
vandee1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, the concept of "Executive Privilege" is NOT in the U.S. Constitution, anywhere. It is a concept that was introduced by the Supreme Court to ONLY cover issues of extreme national security, where if information was revealed about something that could legitimately compromise the security of our nation, then Executive Privilege could be invoked.
That means that Executive Privilege does NOT allow the President or his staff to commit crimes, break Federal law and otherwise subvert the overall rule of law in the U.S. (which this White House has done repeatedly in it's 7 years in office) and then claim "Executive Privilege" to avoid being investigated. Bush invoked Executive Privilege 4 times in a single month alone when stonewalling the U.S. attorney investigation. If you believe that has anything to do with national security, send me an IM, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy, you talk smack all the time yet you support the likes of Clinton and Obama. Get real.
As to your comments, you guys whine constantly about the Bush White House and Executive Privilege. Clinton's team hid behind it and you guys never said a word, because it suited your needs.
Here's the deal, you have control of the Senate and House. Amend the Constitution if you really want to properly define Executive Privilege. While you're at it, correct the problems with the Supreme Court, they're not doing the job our founding fathers had in mind. Congress writes the laws and the courts enforces them. Since the late 30's, the court has slowly become a political activist court. That was never their intended job. It's better with Robert there but they're still trying to write the law.
Then again, that would mean the DNC controlled House and Senate would actually have to do something. I mean other than the tax increases,non-binding resolutions and no drilling rallies.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More BLA BLA BLA from the head propagandist.
You need to bring that wifey of yours home BB ... cause your trash talkin is gettin spooky.
Hear's the deal. We Neo-Cons SCREAM bloody murder about the Activist Court ... as a prelude to INSTITUTIN ACTIVIST JUDGES!
I know you know that ... so just be honest.
It's how the Neo-Conservative Propaganda Machine operates.
Look ... before we instituted FOX ... we mounted a campaign that Whined and Groused about 'LIBUERAL MEDIA'. Now ... even though there's no such thing ... we had to INVENT it so that we could POSITION our Right Wing FOX network as an ALTERNATIVE to MSM.
Its all MARKETING.
Just liek the Supreme Court. What Judge could POSSIBLY be more ACTIVIST than Scalia ... SCALIA ... for God's sake!
Scalia says HE and ONLY HE knows what the founding fathers INTENDED!! LOL!!
And that Clarence Thomas Fella! MAN ALIVE! He don't believe PRECEDENT should be considered ... THEREBY THROWING INTO DOUBT ALL PREVIOUS LAWS!
ACTIVIST INDEED.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm having a very difficult time reading or at least understanding your statements. I understand that you're most likely a product of the public schools, but can't you at least use, say 3rd grade English?
What you're asking for simply isn't possible legally, at least the way the current laws are written or in this case not written. Executive Privilege was never defined by the founding father's. If you want clear cut by the book laws the President and his staff must follow, put in in writing. Your team has control of the Senate and House. With the media playing lapdog to anything liberal, they would help gain the support of the American people. Trust me, Mumbles Bush couldn't talk his way out of this one, if you really wanted to do this. I truly suspect that neither party really wants to define this provision. It's easier to snipe at each other.
BTW-I am not a fan of President Bush. He's not a conservative.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've explained it often joeeddie.
Let me do it again ... just for you ... cause I know you got that OCD thing goin.
We Christian Conservatives and Neo-Con supporters DEMANDED - (notice the all caps ... I believe that's how I've presented this case several times.) -DEMANDED that Johnny move his policies to be in line with those of Gee Dub ... ESPECIALLY on the Iraq War ... which ... as we all know ... is the BEST expression of what the Neo-Con Military Minded Set is all about.
Perhaps you are forgetting how Johnny's poll numbers were 'Less Than Stellar' when he criticized the war effort.
It wasn't until Johnny started to wave the "I LOVE this war" flag ... and promised to stay in Iraq for 100 years .... that we Christian Conservatives embraced Johnny.
Of course, that's why I liek to call him ... Johnny Slick.
OK, joeedie?
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> McCain is a neo-con - CHECK!
> McCain promises 100 years in Iraq - CHECK!
> McCain is McSame is McBush is "W" - CHECK!
You followed the exact order of talking points that Arianna sent out yesterday. I appreciate that in you and how you don't let that lessen the image you have of yourself. It really is a gift. With your continued diligence, we liberals will even have the world believing soon that McCain is the head neo-con in charge. The truth you spout really is different from propaganda, isn't it?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except that your premises are wrong on most points.
The media is playing lapdog to anything CON and has for thirty years, now. The Dems do not have control of the house. For that they'd need a veto-proof majority. And it wouldn't matter, now, would it? Please see the story this thread is under. Congress does indeed have the power to compel Rove's testimony or jail him for contempt, executive privilege be damned. It's tough when it's near 50/50 partisan like it is, but neither Bush nor Rove have done representatives any favors lately, so that's where it's at. As long as the Supreme Court will back them in the end. And thanks to the ACTIVIST JUDGES that Bush has appointed, that's not likely during this administration. And if it gets in front of the SCOTUS now, they'll likely set precedent.
Goppy is right on, as usual. And you, as usual, are one of the ones shilling for the CON in the guise of neo-conservatism and attempting to lay down the fog and mist here. Sheer rot.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, your crack pipe really needs cleaning. The Con media? That's why for every John McCain news article there's 10 times the Obama references. That's why when it was revealed that Obama when to the Afro Nazi church known for spewing hate for over 23 years, the press buried the story and no one is asking about it. When Michelle clearly said this was the first time she was ever proud of her country, the media let it slip that Cindy McCain had been in rehab for a prescription drug problem. The media is neither far nor balanced.
As to Rove's testimony, not if it concerns the White House. He's protected under the Executive Privilege. Change the laws or don't expect his testimony. That plus wasn't Rove an attorney? I don't remember.
Reply-
Neutral
questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As to Rove's testimony, not if it concerns the White House. He's protected under the Executive Privilege.
ep only extends to millitary and /or national security...politicalizing the justice department and/or bringing false charges against dems is neither
do u realize by saying ,if it has to do with the wh? u r admitting that the pres/vp were involved in selective procecussions?
Reply -
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Man Alive!
You are DEALIN CRACK, BB!
Now you are bringin the NAZI shabazz into the exchanges!
Bad idea.
What three industrialized nations used nationalistic propaganda and lies to invade another nation in the last 70 years?
- NAZI Germany ... led by Hitler
- Communist Soviet Union ... led by Brezhnev
- The United States ... led by Bush.
Face it BB ... the Neo-Con ideeologie is the ideeologie of our Godless historical enemies. Course, military contractors LOVE this ideeologie because it mean MILLIONS to them.
Not much for the brave soldier ... but MILLIONS for Weapons Makers.
To Neo-Cons ... the American Soldier is an after thought ... an unreliable element.
That's why the Neo-Cons LOVE BlackWater ... and why they pay BlackWater Soldiers 100 TIMES as much as the American Soldier ... and grouse about even that.
No ... to Neo-Cons such as Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney (Draft Dodgers All) the American Soldier is ... to use Rush's reference ... a Phoney Soldier.
Reply -
Neutral
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uh-Oh, BB64 used that "spew" word. That automatically disqualifies him/her from saying anything credible.
Btw, almost all media in the US is now owned by Israel supporters. Kinda like they were taking over all the banks in pre-Hitler Germany. These folks are Neo-Cons incarnate. They want the US in Iraq forever so we can continue our "obligation" (whatever the hell that is, as Condi Rice stated) to Israel.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The separation of powers, three equal branches of government, have been discussed dozens of times on Netscape and it's those concepts that lead to executive privilege.
If in the due course of carrying out his duties in office the President is entitled to have his communications kept private or his office would become subordinate to congress. Congress has the same privileges in its communications.
If a President lies before a grand jury about a matter not related to separation of powers or the execution of his duties, then privilege does not apply. Nor would it apply in a cover up concerning a break in during a reelection or donations to a reelection campaign from foreign entities.
It remains to be seen if congress can force Rove to testify. The courts would rightly have to decide if privilege could be properly invoked.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The entire essence of the Bush administration has been to innoculate the Presdient from ALL ACCOUNTABILITY.
They have such hubris, they believe they can apply retribution to their perceived enemies by 'punishing' them by ruining careers ... such as Attorneys General and undercover CIA agents.
This is a rogue administration that has the support of certain 'military type's ... just as there have always been certain 'military types' who seek to overthrow goverments that they deem (in their supreme arrogance) as too ... populist.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
FSU92grad1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh...Pul-leaze.....
Just like you're entrenched in the lefty, loony propaganda and jumping on board the Osama express, not because he's a good candidate, but because he's got a lot of bling, but no substance...
Typical for you libs...Just look at your past Democrap choices...
no substance...
Keep on wasting your votes on crappy candidates...At least I would respect you more if Hillary was the nominee...She makes more sense, than this flip-flopping, anti-American, Marxist who claims that he wasn't in the pews when his precious Rev. Wright was spewing his hate...
He was probably outside smoking his cigarettes and thinking up more lies he could feed the public...
Reply-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, well the Curly Howard of the right steps up and starts the GOP flip flop hula. More respect for Hillary as the candidate when a few short months ago it was the worst possible candidate. Followed by a defense of hte who he talked to 20 years ago is more important then what he says today. ROFLMAO, and to boot after repeated attempts to have the right fright dealers indicate what legislation has Obama presented to support those anti-American views you seem to like to babble about and Ive yet to get a single response, Halpha again cant back up her spin and like a lemming you just follow along.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes ... Congress writes the laws ... and then GW gets David Addingham to add a 'Signing Statement' to each law.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/12/...
The intent of each Signing Statement is essentially the same ... to EXCLUDE Goerge W. Bush from being bound by the law.
Now ... tell me, MajJohn ... when you swore an oath to our nation ... was it to protect the Constitution ... or to protect the Office of The Man Who Has Undermined that same Constitution?
Reply -
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I swore to uphold the constitution. I'm not giving George a free ride, but I do want the branches of government to be co-equal and to do that I'm willing to submit to the interpretation of the court. In a sense my support hopefully results in protection of the office, and hopefully goops you'll understand that is not meant to protect the man.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
vandee1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, the concept of "Executive Privilege" is NOT in the U.S. Constitution, anywhere. It is a concept that was introduced by the Supreme Court to ONLY cover issues of extreme national security, where if information was revealed about something that could legitimately compromise the security of our nation, then Executive Privilege could be invoked.
That means that Executive Privilege does NOT allow the President or his staff to commit crimes, break Federal law and otherwise subvert the overall rule of law in the U.S. (which this White House has done repeatedly in it's 7 years in office) and then claim "Executive Privilege" to avoid being investigated. Bush invoked Executive Privilege 4 times in a single month alone when stonewalling the U.S. attorney investigation. If you believe that has anything to do with national security, send me an IM, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.
Reply-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You believe that the President who had every right to keep whatever attorneys he wanted, no one questions that, can not keep his discussions with his staff private concerning this legal act and that a partisan congress can have an investigation for nothing other than political reasons, admitted to by the Democrats. National security issues are not at the heart of the resistance by the President to have his discussions released. First congress must say what law was broken and the reason they are investigating the illegal act. This they can't do. The courts will ultimately decide who's right here. The courts previous decisions upheld the equality of the Legislative and Executive branches and national security was not considered.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (38)
-
berkeley
-
TGrass3001
-
Eagle_Eye
-
tehranchik
-
joey-evans
-
cushi
-
Amazing1
-
Justice4All
-
lfergie812
-
jordan11
-
Poulenc
-
Pupi
-
_kam0_
-
miklkit
-
blinkers
-
Teech
-
KicBoxStallion
-
disraeli
-
questionseverything
-
dadesider
-
fsev41
-
UnusualSuspect
-
Will1313
-
Sabretooth
-
unome2
-
ProudBlueTexan
-
flyonthewallzz
-
Grrr
-
dunkirk
-
browntiger
-
GWHayduke
-
transient
-
RussianThreats
-
CRYMTYPHON
-
mmrhe
-
bluetexasvalley
-
burntorange
-
TLovesTeddy
tmilke1
FSU92grad
Nixie
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.