Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2009, 03:03 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,956,889 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Dear PradoM,

Would you prefer that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald not be allowed to have witnesses for the prosecution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2009, 08:01 PM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,488,232 times
Reputation: 1406
Subpoenas? What does it mean?

A subpoena is a form of compulsory process. The issuance of a subpoena is the regular procedure for obtaining the testimony or other evidence subject to discovery from a person not a party to a legal action. (Absent a properly served subpoena, the witness is not legally obligated to comply with the discovery request.) That is what it means, and nothing more.

One should be mindful, however, that the service of subpoenas on members of the President’s staff may intrude on Executive Privilege; but we can be confident of the fullest cooperation based on this Administration’s commitment to transparency in government - something that we have not seen for the last eight years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 08:08 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,381,937 times
Reputation: 4798
He is expecting they will not implicate him at all. Unless they were in a questionable conversation themselves. The tapes they do have appear to not have any full proof of an actual deal that was setup or that was acted through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 08:48 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,257,028 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Mo's View Post
I won't completely disagree or agree with anything you've posted but I will say this. All politicians are corrupt to a point, so to say that Baracks Cabinet is anymore corrupt than lets say.... Richard Nixon's was (just an example mind you) would just be opinion based.

Here's a fact or two that can be backed up with solid proof. We had a Christian President who took an oath by swearing on the Holy Bible about inappropriate relation's with a certain intern and blatantly lyed, and committed adultry. We have a current President who claims to be a Christian but his actions in regards to many moral Christian beliefs prove otherwise.

Why is morality important to a person who controls the country? Because with out morals you have no ethics and without ethics integrity is missing and without these important character traits we have leaders purporting unethical programs which ultimately make us weaker, not stronger as a Republic. I would never make a blanket statement saying that all Republican's are ethical moral leaders because that would be false, just as it's false to say the same about Democratic leaders. Parties aside, it depends on the person running. A strong leader can fundamentally agree with the ideals of the party they represent and still provide us with moral, ethical leadership. With all that being said I find it difficult to find a Democratic President to use as an example of moral decision making....
And we had a "Christian" President who broke the rule of law, instituted torture, lied to and fear-baited the American people with talk of possible "mushroom clouds" in order to take our nation to war, committed war crimes, broke environmental laws, broke the back of the economy with the biggest debt in the nation's history (after having inherited a surplus), etc.

So don't talk about Democrats lacking "moral decision making."

The reason our country is in the toilet is because of people who willed themselves to believe in George W. Bush, and thereby voted for him twice, and who now STILL refuse to see the truth. Like little children, they dig in their heels and INSIST that their Papa Bush is just one great guy, tortured by the "librul media." Pathetic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Southern Maryland
172 posts, read 278,578 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
And we had a "Christian" President who broke the rule of law, instituted torture, lied to and fear-baited the American people with talk of possible "mushroom clouds" in order to take our nation to war, committed war crimes, broke environmental laws, broke the back of the economy with the biggest debt in the nation's history (after having inherited a surplus), etc.

So don't talk about Democrats lacking "moral decision making."

The reason our country is in the toilet is because of people who willed themselves to believe in George W. Bush, and thereby voted for him twice, and who now STILL refuse to see the truth. Like little children, they dig in their heels and INSIST that their Papa Bush is just one great guy, tortured by the "librul media." Pathetic.
Gee where do I start???

You got this:
"So don't talk about Democrats lacking "moral decision making"

From this:

"I would never make a blanket statement saying that all Republican's are ethical moral leaders because that would be false, just as it's false to say the same about Democratic leaders. Parties aside, it depends on the person running. A strong leader can fundamentally agree with the ideals of the party they represent and still provide us with moral, ethical leadership. With all that being said I find it difficult to find a Democratic President to use as an example of moral decision making...." (I only said difficult. I didn't say impossible)

WOW!!!



You're not an educated person are you? Nowhere in any post have I defended George W Bush. I simply defended the FACT that no one can prove what he was thinking when he decided to invade Iraq and that no one can prove that he whole heartedly believed Iraq had no WMD. I enjoy how you exceedingly insecure far to the left types pick and choose a few words out of a post and make the entire post about those few words.
I suggest you partake in some reading comprehension classes and learn how to read a topic in its entirety and form a decision based on every word.
Here's what I have said.
I was against the Iraq war. (Because I believe Iraq posed no real threat at the time and that sanction's were working adequately enough).
I also stated that going into Iraq accomplished removing an oppressive tyrant, which it did.
I stated that reports are just that "reports". They don't necessarily provide 100% factual information or tell the complete story.
Some more things I never said....
I never mentioned anywhere that I voted for Bush so don't make assumption's about me which you can't back up. Your hatred for Bush and what he accomplished is readily apparent in the words you've typed. I would assume you voted for Obama and I hope that he can make the world and our country a better place because if he doesn't we are in serious trouble. I support him and hope he succeeds.
As for George W Bush. he will be judged by a higher power. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he did the best he could and did what he believed was right for the best of our country. Now this is my opinion. I have no facts which back this up. You can't produce any facts reputing it because only God (as I've said before) and GWB know the real answer. Policies and state of our country aside.
Obama will get the same courtesy when his term has ended....
One last thing it's "liberal" not librul.

Last edited by The_Mo's; 01-27-2009 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 10:04 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,381,937 times
Reputation: 4798
Default It is disturbing isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
And we had a "Christian" President who broke the rule of law, instituted torture, lied to and fear-baited the American people with talk of possible "mushroom clouds" in order to take our nation to war, committed war crimes, broke environmental laws, broke the back of the economy with the biggest debt in the nation's history (after having inherited a surplus), etc.

So don't talk about Democrats lacking "moral decision making."

The reason our country is in the toilet is because of people who willed themselves to believe in George W. Bush, and thereby voted for him twice, and who now STILL refuse to see the truth. Like little children, they dig in their heels and INSIST that their Papa Bush is just one great guy, tortured by the "librul media." Pathetic.
Quote:
Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were
pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi
weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure
cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is
hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment
that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf (broken link)


Democratic statements on Iraq and why they could never actually try to bring charges against Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Southern Maryland
172 posts, read 278,578 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
He is expecting they will not implicate him at all. Unless they were in a questionable conversation themselves. The tapes they do have appear to not have any full proof of an actual deal that was setup or that was acted through.
There you go again with the "full proof" myth. There's no such thing as "full proof", there is only reasonable doubt..... Decisions are made based on available information which is never 100% "fulll proof". As humans we're flawed with an annoying thing called emotion's and make decisions based on information as well as emotion's, which is why bad decision's are often made.

Liberal's excluded obviously because (as practically everyone here would know), and as if I need to tell this to you. Liberals are never wrong beacuse they know what people think based on literature and news reports provided to those who make decision's. sarcasm intended

If we had to rely on 100% truth to make decisions we would still be trapped in the stone age.

Last edited by The_Mo's; 01-27-2009 at 10:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Orlando
8,274 posts, read 12,827,778 times
Reputation: 4142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PradoM View Post
Obama's presidency has a high probability of being one of the most corrupt in American history. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but here are the signs.

First: Liberals in power have a different standard of morality that puts normal cause and effect in reverse. Most people believe that their actions are more important than their stated beliefs. If I stole your property but I wanted the poor to have a better life, most people would still call me a thief...

Second: Modern liberalism also holds that "public service" in defense of whomever has been defined as needing the state's support this hour is so important that normal rules, tradition, and even laws can be ignored...

Third: President Obama experienced his political origins, maturity and success through one of the most corrupt political systems in America...

Wow sorry we can't live up to the standards of lying in order to start a war that serves our own interests and not the nations, or being complacent so we can be attacked by outsiders, or viol;ating the Geneva Convention and being guilt of war crimes, or how about violating the Constitution, treason, wow... and you think Obama is corrupt because he is from a state the govenor abused his office.... guilt by association of course.. oh but that was his issue with ayers... a known terrorist... ( with sarcasm) like aiding the Bin Laden family is any better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 10:47 PM
 
1,986 posts, read 4,057,425 times
Reputation: 1343
Obama went into office with both barrels blazing, just like Bush did, so don't go making excuses for him. Bush went in with his own personal agenda. I fear Obama went in with his as well, only his is not so in-your-face; it's more sinister.

For 20 years he affiliated himself with an extremely controversial church, only to denounce it when it was discovered and broadcast. He would still be buddies with Jeremiah Wright had Trinity and Wright not been affecting his standing as a candidate.

That alone is cause for concern. He said what he had to say to get himself elected, but now that he has been, he will most likely go back to his old habits and ways of thinking.

And as for the poster who said Obama had never even been to Chicago. Trinity is in Chicago and he went there for 20 years.

We're in for 4 long and dangerous years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 10:54 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,257,028 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy night View Post
Obama went into office with both barrels blazing, just like Bush did, so don't go making excuses for him. Bush went in with his own personal agenda. I fear Obama went in with his as well, only his is not so in-your-face; it's more sinister.

For 20 years he affiliated himself with an extremely controversial church, only to denounce it when it was discovered and broadcast. He would still be buddies with Jeremiah Wright had Trinity and Wright not been affecting his standing as a candidate.

That alone is cause for concern. He said what he had to say to get himself elected, but now that he has been, he will most likely go back to his old habits and ways of thinking.

And as for the poster who said Obama had never even been to Chicago. Trinity is in Chicago and he went there for 20 years.

We're in for 4 long and dangerous years.
Oh for godsake, grow up. Obama is not the boogey-man. No matter what Fox News and Sarah Palin say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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 - Top