RunRyder - Rove should be held in comtempt for this.

rrTV-PHOTO

New HD TV

HOME rrTV-PHOTO GALLERIES MY GALLERY HELP-FAQ

myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 276 ONLINE 20 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER START HERE

6 pages [ << < 1 ( 2 ) 3 4 NEXT >> ]

1509 views

POST REPLY

3D Heli Depot	.	JR-Spektrum	.	Gyro Hobbies
	.		.

Off Topics > Rove should be held in comtempt for this.

BJames111
Elite Veteran
Location: Billings, Montana

Quote
I would say the EXACT same thing about anyone from either party that did this. I would not go so far as to call him arrogant. More likely he is being told that he should not go. Still, I think he should be drug down there in handcuffs if need be. Stet, you are correct on the FISA issue...But not here. It is about respecting the law, not ignoring it.

completely agree. Democrat or Republican both need to be held accountable.

Brian James
Miniature Aircraft Fury Extreme
G-Force Heli
Elevated R/C

07-11-2008 05:42 PM

HOMEPAGE

Rob_T
Elite Veteran
Location: Tualatin, OR - USA

Stet, thank you for proving my point so eloquently.

Why are people so prepared to shred the constitution to provide the false illusion of security? I get beaten down all the time over my position on gun control by people who want to protect their interpretation of the 2nd amendment and not give an inch, yet the same people claim "no foul" as the 4th is bulldozed into a heap of rubble.

Rob
Eco8, Piccolo Fun, Shogun, HB Elite CP, Trex 450XL CDE, Swift

07-11-2008 06:13 PM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

OK to the subject then

The arrogance is of the stupid democrats grandstanding on a pointless issue just like they did for that ahole Joe Wilson. They know exec privilege applies, so it is just a damn stunt with NO legal teeth.

- The administration can fire any at will attorney - No laws broken

- Wilson lied about the yellow cake from Niger. Notice in the news today that we just moved 500 tons of that stuff out of Iraq and into canada. His wife sent him there to betray her boss the POTUS. So those lying sacks of shiite hide behind her status which wasnt her status. So no laws broken except stupid libby who lied to investigators and paid the price. And it was Armitage, an administration critic who did the leak to Novak, but the aholes playing the game don't run him up on a subpoena, because their intent is not to find the leak but to waste the time of the administration and pretend they care which they dont

The congress should stop wasting our money on these stunts.

A heap of rubble? I ask again, who's rights have been violated and better yet why did the dems now strengthen it and formalize FISA? Because it is not an infringement on YOUR rights. And once again it is the weenies crying "the sky is falling". So lame.

The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What good would it do you to deny that right to law abiding citizens anyway? Gun control is a failed regime, just like welfare, affirmative action and all the other liberal crap we have to pay for that does nothing to advance our people.

keepin' it real

07-11-2008 09:02 PM

JohnLund
Heliman
Location: Corpus Christi, TX

Quote
A heap of rubble? I ask again, who's rights have been violated and better yet why did the dems now strengthen it and formalize FISA? Because it is not an infringement on YOUR rights. And once again it is the weenies crying "the sky is falling". So lame.

I pretty much agree with you on your points about the failed gun control, and the welfare entitlement system that has become a monumental failure. My problem is with the idea that we are letting our government gain more and more control, and invasion into our lives because of the fear propaghanda. It does not matter that supposedly no ones rights have been violated, which once I get home and research a bit more will find some cases where that is untrue, it does matter that even if it hasn't been used to violate law-abiding citizens fourth amendment rights, it can. Now, because you side with the current administration, and see their efforts to protect the sheeple as worthwhile, you agree with this garbage, however, if it were the democrats welding the powers that the current administration has given itself, you'd be raising holy hell. I personally do not want to see any infringement of our rights passed into law, I don't care if it's left, or right doing it.

No elected official is above the law, in this administration, or any other. Executive privilege isn't a shield when you've been screwing the people, or lying, to hide behind.

Ron's Heliproz South

07-11-2008 09:25 PM

RonHill
Veteran
Location: ..

Quote
OK to the subject then

The subject is a person flat out ignoring a subpoena.

The REASON for the subpoena is not the issue, ignoring it is the issue.

07-11-2008 09:30 PM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

So they issue an unenforceable subpoena for purposes of grandstanding and you think it is a big deal, when it is a gesture of their disdain for the administration and nothing else. And you fall for it.

Why do they do it? Because their approval is at 9% and the idiots think that by going after Rove, it will somehow endear them to the public who supposedly hates Rove. So they do that instead of what is important, like reforming social security, or indigent health care, which they will never do until they collapse under the weight of growing entitlements which they love.

Let me know when the federal marshals arrest Rove for failing to show up. Won't happen.

The issue is moot, old, pointless and not based on law. But you think it is important. And for you they do it.

Ever heard of the separation of powers or the concept of executive privilege?

""The REASON for the subpoena is not the issue, ignoring it is the issue.""

Boy, that sounds a lot like "it is the seriousness of the charge, not the evidence"

keepin' it real

07-11-2008 11:01 PM

RonHill
Veteran
Location: ..

Stet

Quote
So they issue an unenforceable subpoena for purposes of grandstanding and you think it is a big deal, when it is a gesture of their disdain for the administration and nothing else. And you fall for it.

And you stand there and piss on the rules out of spite for the Congress. He was called, he should have shown up. He could have easily not said a damn word citing the 5th Amendment and I would have supported that.

But not showing up under subpoena is wrong..And you support that?

All I am saying is he should have shown up. YOU are blindly instilling partisanship here over your hatred of the Dem controlled Congress

Quote
Ever heard of the separation of powers or the concept of executive privilege?

Yep, ever heard of the law?

Quote
Boy, that sounds a lot like "it is the seriousness of the charge, not the evidence"

Not even close...But I do not expect you to even consider for a second that your views are not 100% correct.

And YOU wanted to drag in unrelated topics. Those were in no way related.

07-11-2008 11:17 PM

Rob_T
Elite Veteran
Location: Tualatin, OR - USA

Quote
""The REASON for the subpoena is not the issue, ignoring it is the issue."" Boy, that sounds a lot like "it is the seriousness of the charge, not the evidence"

Actually Clinton didn't face an impeachment vote because of having sex, and Martha Stewart did not go to jail for insider trading. So contempt of the legal process is a big deal.

However I also think there are charges to be answered, so for me the issue isn't just the contempt of the legal system.

Rob
Eco8, Piccolo Fun, Shogun, HB Elite CP, Trex 450XL CDE, Swift

07-11-2008 11:34 PM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

The fifth is to protect yourself from self incrimination. Given no crime, it does not apply. I guess you don't quite understand the difference.

The congress does not get to pull the administration's chain.

And if you don't understand the issue and the answers already, then you don't follow the topics in the news.

There is no new news, they gotta drag up this old news?

Other than the mouth frothers, does the public care about this and want it pursued? No

keepin' it real

07-12-2008 12:37 AM

RonHill
Veteran
Location: ..

Quote
The fifth is to protect yourself from self incrimination. Given no crime, it does not apply. I guess you don't quite understand the difference.

I understand the topics...If it is a crime or not is not for YOU to decide. If there is no crime, then showing would not hurt him one bit.

I also understand that you are dragging unrelated topics up since you are just showing your disdain for the Dem controlled Congress.

Fact is that there is no logical reason for him not to respect the subpoena other than he just does not want to and thinks he is above the process.

Quote
And if you don't understand the issue and the answers already, then you don't follow the topics in the news.

It seems I understand them better than you. You are confusing and combining them since it allows you to show your disdain.

Quote
The congress does not get to pull the administration's chain.

This statement shows you do not know about the three branches and the checks and balance system in place. You are claiming that it does not apply and can be ignored.

07-12-2008 12:45 AM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

It can be ignored, it will be ignored, it is being ignored because of the BS that it is. Since it is BS there will be no consequence other than a grandstanding stunt that wastes our money.

Did Rove advise to remove certain attorneys? Doesn't matter, they were legally removed. Is Rove's advice to the POTUS privileged? Yes. Does anybody care? No. Do you care? Apparently you don't have any real concerns, given you waste your angst on this non issue.

Why don't they subpoena him on Plame again?

If there is no scandal, they waste our money trying to manufacture one. So totally empty and lame.

Explain again why you want him to take the fifth? He exercised his privilege by declining their invitation to a sound byte circus which has no bearing on the business at hand.

Are all democrats this stupid? No, but it is the 95% that make the 5% look bad.

keepin' it real

07-12-2008 01:47 AM

LouInSD
Veteran
Location: San Diego CA USA

More lunacy from the lunatic fringe right wing.

So let's recap...

Stet says wiretapping is fine because the Dems agreed to it.

Stet says Democrats are wrong on everything but they cave into the Repubs who are ready to shred the Constitution as long as they can hold on to their positions for one more term, and STET suddenly says THAT is the justification and PROOF that wiretapping is okay.

LOL, this is the problem with America today folks. People who think like this. These people have led you down the path to hell and we still allow them to get away with their anti-American blather.

Well, its good to know that people are finally waking up, but it would be nice to see more people challenge these wackos when they vomit up this nonsense...

I applaud those who have so far in this thread.

These people need to be marginalized again. That is where they belong in this society, in the background spewing their hatred for our way of life, and the Constitution, at the walls of their padded cells...

07-12-2008 02:23 AM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

Nope, I say it is right, because it is, always has been. Dems just validated that after a year of "debate" (handwringing about how to handle their kook base, like Lou here only to decide their base is not kooks after all).

How is the constitution shredded by FISA? Of course you won't go into any detail. Technical analysis was never the strongpoint for dropout Lou.

Who has woken up? A few dopes who fall for the Rove bait, that's all. Awoken to what, they have been betrayed by their government again? Better get used to that when your values don't fit.

Same old noise, same old impact in the real world for Lou, big fat zero. Your "policies" never seem to get adopted, except perhaps in the chants of code pink nutbars.

keepin' it real

07-12-2008 04:08 AM

Rob_T
Elite Veteran
Location: Tualatin, OR - USA

No Stet, as I said in my previous post, the Dems caved to the mob. Shame on them.

Please try to argue in favor of the fourth as vehemently as you argue for the second. Otherwise you might create the impression you just want to preserve the right to your chosen toys and protecting the constitution is just a convenient argument.

Rob
Eco8, Piccolo Fun, Shogun, HB Elite CP, Trex 450XL CDE, Swift

07-12-2008 07:29 AM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

Having been the victim of a home invasion robbery and a gunshot wound I do not consider them or treat them as toys.

I do not consider listening to phone calls to be an unreasonable search and seizure especially when we are at war. Lincoln completely suspended Habius Corpus for citizens, we survived that.

I do not consider these monitored calls to be a threat, in fact I prefer it over a dirty bomb going off in downtown Long Beach where I live.

You don't even have a single victim who you can cite, just a paranoid reaction founded on your spite for Bush.

After all, Bobby Kennedy illegally surveilled MLK. Not to mention what Hoover did. We are very far from anything remotely resembling that.

It's not a mob, it's common sense.

keepin' it real

07-12-2008 07:34 AM

AddCollective
New Heliman
Location: USA

1) Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted of the charges.

Our congress votes with our wallets in mind.

07-12-2008 07:38 AM

RonHill
Veteran
Location: ..

Stet

In many cases I agree with you.

But this is not one of them. The system was put into place with checks and balances. A single person should not be allowed to ignore them when they want.

FISA..Yeah IMO the dems look foolish on that one. They raged against it, and then pretty much voted it in since they knew they would not win it...The fact Obama voted for it after being against it is funny and just shows IMO how he is pandering to the middle.

But THIS topic (you cannot seem to stay on course) is about the checks and balances put in place and how Rove should not be able to ignore them.

You have no logical argument on that topic...The best you can do is call it all BS and then try to change the topic.

07-12-2008 04:17 PM

Stet
Elite Veteran
Location: Long Beach CA

Part of checks and balances is the fact that there exists executive privilege, nothing new.

What would actually be proved if Rove was dragged in and forced to testify? That the firings were political? Isn's everything they do political? The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the federal government and the president, he does not legally need to give any reason for their removal. Therefore, staying on topic, I believe it is actually correct to say that the process being used is nothing more than grandstanding, and an abouse used for political posturing only. So it is perfectly legit to be ignored.

keepin' it real

07-12-2008 04:46 PM

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Quote
Part of checks and balances is the fact that there exists executive privilege, nothing new.

Stet "executive privilege" is a dodge, if he has nothing to hide then why not talk.

Quote
What would actually be proved if Rove was dragged in and forced to testify? That the firings were political?

Yes and that is illegal, do you want a DoJ that is politically driven?

Quote
The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the federal government and the president, he does not legally need to give any reason for their removal.

Stet it is so hard to not just call you a Dumbass, please think about what this country would be like if the President could fire anybody that investigated him.
Have you ever heard of the Staurday Night Massacre?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

07-12-2008 06:19 PM

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Quote
FISA..Yeah IMO the dems look foolish on that one. They raged against it, and then pretty much voted it in since they knew they would not win it..

The Dems are as bads as the CONs, Harry Reed could have stop this from even being voted on.

Quote
The fact Obama voted for it after being against it is funny and just shows IMO how he is pandering to the middle.

The "middle" no, Obama is pandering to the ignorant and IMO he will be the biggest disappointment in history if elected.
But THIS topic (you cannot seem to stay on course) is about the checks and balances put in place and how Rove should not be able to ignore them.

Quote
But THIS topic (you cannot seem to stay on course) is about the checks and balances put in place and how Rove should not be able to ignore them.

This is really about covering up a crime.

07-12-2008 06:36 PM

6 pages [ << < 1 ( 2 ) 3 4 NEXT >> ]

1509 views

POST REPLY

E-flite	.	Next D	.	Fast Lad Performance
	.		.

Off Topics > Rove should be held in comtempt for this.

PRINT TOPIC

Advertisers

Subscribe to This Topic