Disco Stu wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:Even if they did lie about why they fired them, that doesnt make it a scandal in my eyes, since they have right to do it in the first place.

Are you serious? Is this Celtic btw?

Whether they have the right to fire them isn't the question. You know that. It is why they fired them. They said it was initially because of poor work. That is a lie and that is the problem. The White House didn't want people to think it was done for political reasons while it CLEARLY was and they lied about it.

You may not care but millions of people DO care when The White House lies under oath.

What I find interesting is that they lied to cover up their legal, but obvious political agendas. Clinton lied about his legal but obvious personal agendas. Clinton has a corrupt soul, but they are corrupt politicians.

I wasnt aware anyone lied under oath in this matter.

kimbatiste wrote:I think it's appropriate to commend Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia, for his introduction of Ahmadinejad today. I appreciate his honesty and frankness and calling a spade a spade while he sat next to him. Of course, would anyone be surprised if he is involved in an "accident" anytime soon?

I guess he came out swinging, but he never should have put himself in that place to begin with IMO

Rococo4 wrote:I wasnt aware anyone lied under oath in this matter.

SCHUMER: Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.

SAMPSON: I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.

But a new e-mail released to the House Judiciary Committee shows that on Jan. 9, 2006 — a year before the prosecutors were fired — Sampson recommended replacements for almost every one of the U.S. attorneys on the administration’s hit list, suggesting that these prosecutors were fired to make way for partisan loyalists.

link

Also, Monica Goodling basically accused Paul McNulty of perjury and she described a meeting where Gonzales appeared to try to coach her testimony.

Rococo4 wrote:I wasnt aware anyone lied under oath in this matter.

They did, but does it matter? Is lying to the American public ok as long as it isn't under oath?

Certainly one is illegal and one is not. But isn't it corruption of character that leads you to lie to the people who elected you and trust you?

i officially give up on the human race.

"Watching ducks land on a lake in Arkansas in the winter is about the closest to Heaven as you can find on this earth... and as someone who believes, according to my faith, I will go to Heaven when I die, I am pretty sure that there is duck hunting in Heaven!"

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWE2OTdjMjJkOTAxMTIzOTZlNGY5YzBjOTQwYWIyMGQ=

Took you long enough

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I wasnt aware anyone lied under oath in this matter.

SCHUMER: Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.

SAMPSON: I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.

But a new e-mail released to the House Judiciary Committee shows that on Jan. 9, 2006 — a year before the prosecutors were fired — Sampson recommended replacements for almost every one of the U.S. attorneys on the administration’s hit list, suggesting that these prosecutors were fired to make way for partisan loyalists.

link

Also, Monica Goodling basically accused Paul McNulty of perjury and she described a meeting where Gonzales appeared to try to coach her testimony.

Hmm, well you and your left wing think tank / Clinton propaganda machine got me there.

But I still wouldnt have included Domenici on the list.

Giuliani campaign announcement:

“On behalf of 9/11, 9/11 regrets the decision of certain 9/11 supporters not officially affiliated with 9/11 to 9/11 9/11.”

dajafi wrote:Giuliani campaign announcement:

“On behalf of 9/11, 9/11 regrets the decision of certain 9/11 supporters not officially affiliated with 9/11 to 9/11 9/11.”

LOL

Giuliani was mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Oh, did we mention 9.11?

Rococo4 wrote:Hmm, well you and your left wing think tank / Clinton propaganda machine got me there.

Was that sarcasm?

Rococo4 wrote:But I still wouldnt have included Domenici on the list.

I'm still curious about why. I think I've asked you to explain several times now.

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:Hmm, well you and your left wing think tank / Clinton propaganda machine got me there.

Was that sarcasm?

Rococo4 wrote:But I still wouldnt have included Domenici on the list.

I'm still curious about why. I think I've asked you to explain several times now.

IOKIYAR?

Rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party?

Bill O'Reilly's Harlem Night

What a fool tool!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bill O'Reilly's Harlem Night

What a fool tool!

"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea,'" O'Reilly said, adding, "You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

They must have been on their best behavoir because whitey was watching. It's hard to believe they weren't going crazy, especially when ordering iced tea.

Whew, he met the good black people.

Thing is, this plays right into his target market of 60+ yr old white people.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bill O'Reilly's Harlem Night

What a fool tool!

It's easy--and fully appropriate--to laugh at BillO, and also to be saddened by the racism that informs his premise. But maybe that's the wrong approach and we should be pleased that he was open enough to revise his own bigoted views.

pacino's exactly right about his audience--and we all probably know enough of those viewers to know that they substantially share this perspective. If there's good news here, maybe it's that their racism, like Bill's, is "soft" (I doubt most of those people, or O'Reilly himself, would want to legalize employment discrimination, legally disenfranchise non-whites, etc) and open to reconsideration rather than hardened in the manner of the old Confederacy before the Civil Rights Era.

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bill O'Reilly's Harlem Night

What a fool tool!

It's easy--and fully appropriate--to laugh at BillO, and also to be saddened by the racism that informs his premise. But maybe that's the wrong approach and we should be pleased that he was open enough to revise his own bigoted views.

pacino's exactly right about his audience--and we all probably know enough of those viewers to know that they substantially share this perspective. If there's good news here, maybe it's that their racism, like Bill's, is "soft" (I doubt most of those people, or O'Reilly himself, would want to legalize employment discrimination, legally disenfranchise non-whites, etc) and open to reconsideration rather than hardened in the manner of the old Confederacy before the Civil Rights Era.

THis racism is ultimately worse than out and out hatred though, because it's much easier to permeate levels of society and the brains of offspring.

The blacks in Harlem must be so well spoken.

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bill O'Reilly's Harlem Night

What a fool tool!

It's easy--and fully appropriate--to laugh at BillO, and also to be saddened by the racism that informs his premise. But maybe that's the wrong approach and we should be pleased that he was open enough to revise his own bigoted views.

pacino's exactly right about his audience--and we all probably know enough of those viewers to know that they substantially share this perspective. If there's good news here, maybe it's that their racism, like Bill's, is "soft" (I doubt most of those people, or O'Reilly himself, would want to legalize employment discrimination, legally disenfranchise non-whites, etc) and open to reconsideration rather than hardened in the manner of the old Confederacy before the Civil Rights Era.

I'm all for treating this as good news, but I can't help seeing an agenda in his comments. I don't think Bill was merely relaying his insight into cultural similarities. I think this was more along the lines of, see we're all the same so why would we need to have things like affirmative action? Why are there people who keep bringing up race when it does not belong? There really are no problems with race and racial tension is just fueled by certain leaders who are just trying to generate support for themselves by fanning flames of racism.

Here is the quote on which I am basing my interpretation of what he was getting at with the description of this meal:

O'Reilly also stated: "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."

The Red Tornado wrote:The blacks in Harlem must be so well spoken.

I wonder what he expected.


As for that 'thinking for themselves' comment...they've been doing it for, oh, their whole lives. He must really think there is some big meeting.