Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:44 am

And I love it.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...14509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Guess it shows that if you're going to play such games, you'd better be ready to get burned when those you slur are suddenly in a position to say yes or no to your potential job.

I, for one, am glad.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:03 pm

I don't know anything about Fox.

However, I don't get the logic behind this pointed question:

Kerry, D-Mass., asked Fox on in February whether his condemnation of '527 Groups,' such as the 'Swift Boat' group, is at odds with his $50,000 donation.


Fox may ahve condemned 527 groups as a campaign tool for reasons X, Y, and Z, but so long as such groups remain legal and an effective campain tool it's realistic to expect that he would exploit them.

If one believes that the electoral college is a bad system, should he not vote until it's abolished?
If I state that we need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil/energy am I to go without until this dependence is eliminated?
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:54 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Guess it shows that if you're going to play such games

  

The current ambassador to Belgium, Tom Korologos, gave over $100,000 to the GOP in 2004.

It is a very long standing tradition to award ambassador positions from the in-house party.

[Edited 2007-03-29 08:04:54]
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Quoting FXramper (Reply 2):
The current ambassador to Belgium, Tom Korologos, gave over $100,000 to the GOP in 2004.

Yes, but this guy was a Swift-boater. Different (I think).  Wink
International Homo of Mystery
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:11 pm

Quoting FXramper (Reply 2):
It is a very long standing tradition to award ambassador positions from the in-house party.

Selling public positions - it's nothing but open and sanctioned corruption.  yuck 

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Guess it shows that if you're going to play such games, you'd better be ready to get burned when those you slur are suddenly in a position to say yes or no to your potential job.

Karma is a bitch... and right now, she's pissed!  mischievous 
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Selling public positions - it's nothing but open and sanctioned corruption.

Yet it continues to happen from ancient times.


From the article...

"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said Wednesday. "He chose not to....I hope this signals a new day in political discourse."


Hello Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle. You can call him black.

Sen. Kerry, hell...any Senator or either party lecturing someone on disavowing politics of personal destruction is nothing but a damn joke.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
OU812
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:19 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Guess it shows that if you're going to play such games, you'd better be ready to get burned when those you slur are suddenly in a position to say yes or no to your potential job.

Agreed,
Kerry's consistent slimming of his fellow soldier's cost him the chance to hold the job he so wanted to have! " President of the United States"!   He F-ed them in the 70's & the F-ed them 30 years later!

Kerry Belittles U.S. Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4n1kn89Cw&mode=related&search=

Kerry apologizes to troops after 'botched joke'
Senator's comments on Iraq policy were met with anger from both parties

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018908/

[Edited 2007-03-29 21:00:15]
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Guess it shows that if you're going to play such games, you'd better be ready to get burned when those you slur are suddenly in a position to say yes or no to your potential job.

I, for one, am glad.

And the hypocrisy shows up once again. I guess you are for freedom of speech unless that speech disagrees with you.

Let's review the facts. The guy made a political contribution in support of something he either believed in or opposed (however you want to view it).

He is then nominated for a government job and he's denied that job solely BECAUSE of his political speech.

I guess in your mind, the only people who are entitled to Constitutional protections are those in Gitmo.

Amazing.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 7):
And the hypocrisy shows up once again.

@Pope
You sound surprised! I'm joking of course. The hypocrisy continues!

@Falcon84
Do you feel Sam Fox donating to the Swift Boats is so much worse than what John Kerry has done and said regarding our troops? Judging by your actions, you condone Kerry's anti-US troop drivel. That's your right of course.
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:22 am

If you right wing hatchet wielders think Fox's involvement with the Swift Boaters is just an expression of free speech, then you should have had no problems with Dan Rather's involvement in the false news reports about W's military service. At the time, however, you were all absolutely enraged with Rather and CBS News. By your logic, Rather reporting falsehoods about W is nothing to have been upset about, either. It's not free speech when it's an absolute lie, as was the case with Swift Boat. That W even considered nominating Fox for an ambassadorship testifies to the President's cluelessness, at best, or his lack of integrity, at worst.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting Dvk (Reply 9):
If you right wing hatchet wielders think Fox's involvement with the Swift Boaters is just an expression of free speech, then you should have had no problems with Dan Rather's involvement in the false news reports about W's military service. At the time, however, you were all absolutely enraged with Rather and CBS News. By your logic, Rather reporting falsehoods about W is nothing to have been upset about, either. It's not free speech when it's an absolute lie, as was the case with Swift Boat. That W even considered nominating Fox for an ambassadorship testifies to the President's cluelessness, at best, or his lack of integrity, at worst.

 redflag 

I have absolutely no problem with Dan Rather expressing whatever personal views he likes. I don't even have a problem with him going on the "news" and doing so. Clearly the US constitution protects him for doing that. However, attacking his credibility as a journalist for doing what he did is also perfectly permissible. Rather was fired because he lost credibility as a journalist.

Furthermore, the BIG difference is that when Rather got fired from CBS, he was fired by a private entity therefore no Constitutional issue involving free speech is involved.

When Fox is denied a government job by a member of the government SOLELY on the basis of his political speech that raises all sorts of Constitutional issues.

When government action is involved the 5th and 14th amendments are implicated. When the government acts to restrict or punish speech, then the first amendment is implicated.

While this act by the US Senate is distateful from a freedom of speech perspective - it "chills" political speech - it probably cannot be reviewed because of the non-justiciability guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in US v. Nixon (the judge not the President).

What this incident does show is the hypocrisy of the Senate right now. Just today they were banging the drums about the the firings of US attorneys when they say the justification for their firing is insufficient because the motivation was political in nature, while just down the hall, the Senate itself was refusing to confirm someone because of their political speech.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:16 am

Quoting CO7772WUH (Reply 8):
you condone Kerry's anti-US troop drivel.

I'm not Falco84 but I'm going to comment on this anyway. I don't accept that Kerry is anti US troops. Love how you set it up as an either/or choice. It's an obvious rhetorical device.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
B777-700
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting OU812 (Reply 6):
Agreed,
Kerry's consistent slimming of his fellow soldier's cost him the chance to hold the job he so wanted to have! " President of the United States"! He F-ed them in the 70's & the F-ed them 30 years later!

Kerry Belittles U.S. Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4n1kn89Cw&mode=related&search=

Kerry apologizes to troops after 'botched joke'
Senator's comments on Iraq policy were met with anger from both parties
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018908/

 redflag  Distraction. Stay on topic.

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
However, attacking his credibility as a journalist for doing what he did is also perfectly permissible.

Then attacking Fox's credibility as an embassador is perfectly permissible.
If you don't chew Big Red, then @#$% you.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 12):
Then attacking Fox's credibility as an embassador is perfectly permissible.

Absolutely, but from what I've read, it's not his credibility that's being attacked. He didn't write the ad, he's not responsible for its content. He funded it to the tune of $50,000 (?) IIRC. Therefore, it's the fact that he supported a political message that they didn't like that is at the core of this.

Is every contributor to the ACLU or PETA responsible for the content of every act they've taken as an organization?

Do you really think that if he funded an ad that was wrong but not political against John Kerry this would be an issue. Hell, Kerry himself admits this is personal because of what the man said.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:28 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
What this incident does show is the hypocrisy of the Senate right now. Just today they were banging the drums about the the firings of US attorneys when they say the justification for their firing is insufficient because the motivation was political in nature, while just down the hall, the Senate itself was refusing to confirm someone because of their political speech

You are so desperately trying to defend Fox that it's almost funny. Flagrant lies are not protected by the constitution. Laws against slander and libel would not exist if they were. The bigger issue is Fox's dubious integrity, and the Senate has every right to reject him or any other Swift Boater on that basis. They're exercising their rights to free speech, as well.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:32 am

The only reason this guy was nominated as ambassador was because of his campaign contributions. It's only fitting he should be rejected for them as well.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting Dvk (Reply 14):
Flagrant lies are not protected by the constitution. Laws against slander and libel would not exist if they were.

I'm not aware that there has been any adjudication of slander or libel in this matter. You're just making stuff up.

If Kerry could prove it, don't you think he would have tried? If these things are so ridiculous then why not prove them out. Remember, truth is an absolute defense to slander/libel. If Kerry brings the suit, his sealed military records could be subpoeaed by the defense because they would be relevant to the allegation. Do you think that has anything to do with it?

Heck, I'll even grant you that proving slander against a public official is difficult, but why not refute the charge in the court of public opinion. Release the records and embarrass your accuser.

As for me defending Fox, I honestly couldn't care less. I personally think the swift boat ad were below the belt and that Fox is scum for doing it. That being said it doesn't mean that the US Congress should be denying someone a job because of political speech while simultaneously criticizing the administration for doing the same.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
I'm not aware that there has been any adjudication of slander or libel in this matter. You're just making stuff up.

You're twisting words and you know it, so I'll do the same in return. By your claims, free speech justifies anything, including the Senate saying and doing anything it wants that doesn't overtly break the law, so you have no basis for complaining.  smirk 
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
User avatar
GuitrThree
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:16 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 7):
And the hypocrisy shows up once again. I guess you are for freedom of speech unless that speech disagrees with you.

Pope, you're spot on as usual. This is NOTHING but Kerry trying to silence the right to contribute to a campaign. If this was the criteria, then just about 100% of all nominations on both sides would be rejected, because I'm willing to bet they contributed in some way.

But, we're talking about Falcons opinion here. You remember, the moderate one here, but slams just about, no, every republican he can.

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
I'm not aware that there has been any adjudication of slander or libel in this matter. You're just making stuff up.

If Kerry could prove it, don't you think he would have tried? If these things are so ridiculous then why not prove them out.

Humm, right again. I'm reading all this stuff about it being a lie, but seems to me I've NEVER read or seen any proof to the contrary, except, of course for Mr. "I refuse to release my medical records" John Kerry and I think 3 of the soldiers out of 50 or so maybe?? So get off of this "lie" stuff. It's been backed up by many many more people than have denied it.
And yes, Pope, this is all PROVEN by the fact that Mr. Kerry simply cannot show the lie.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 14):
Flagrant lies are not protected by the constitution. Laws against slander and libel would not exist if they were.

Correct. So show me where Mr. Fox or -any- of the "Swift-boaters" have been successfully sued for "slander" and "libel." Oh wait, you can't. Why? Don't think for ONE SECOND, if John Kerry could prove the slander and libel he wouldn't go after the group, and yet he hasn't.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
Sen. Kerry, hell...any Senator or either party lecturing someone on disavowing politics of personal destruction is nothing but a damn joke.

Couldn't have said it better...


Oh, and one more thing, isn't it Bush's office being so "disgraced" because he "removed" 8 U.S. Prosecutors because they supposedly disagreed with Bush's Political Ideas?

I don't see the likes of Falcon and Westy calling a foul there, now do I? I mean they are jumping up and down happy over the actions of Kerry blocking an appointment for political reasons, but they aren't doing the same for Bush. Humm. Wonder why?

This thread as usual is nothing more than living in the liberal lefts world once again where it's PERFECTLY FINE for John Kerry to vote against a confirmation of someone because he doesn't believe in the politics of the man, but let Bush remove someone for the SAME REASON and all hell breaks out, investigations, hearings, trials, media circus coverage, perjury, treason, etc, etc.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:22 am

"During a confirmation hearing last month, Kerry grilled Fox about why he had given $50,000 to a group that was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Kerry seemed to be seeking an apology but Fox didn't budge, saying he simply gave when asked.

"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said Wednesday. "He chose not to. The White House made the right decision to withdraw the nomination. I hope this signals a new day in political discourse."


So what you are saying is Sen. Kerry objected to this man for the job not because he didn't know anything about Belgium, although I don't know if he does or not, or because his education didn't warrant the posting, again I don't know if it does or not, but simply because he gave money to a completely legal political advocation group? In the rest of the world that's called being a sore loser and holding a long grudge someone who, by his own addmission only contributed to the swift boat group.

And you on the left are worried about the right taking away your rights to free speech and expression thereof? Kerry didn't even need any part of the Patriot Act to deny this man a posting that he may well have been qualified for and deserved.

So by your standards Falcon thiis mean that if Dan Rather were to apply to replace Tony Snow the White House would be fully justified in denying him the job simply based on his false reporting of the Presidents military record?

[Edited 2007-03-30 01:34:10]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:32 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
So by your standards Falcon thiis mean that if Dan Rather were to apply to replace Tony Snow the White House would be fully justified in denying him the job simply based on his false reporting of the Presidents military record?

Yes, actually, because Rather's credibility suffered greatly in that episode, and the last thing the president would want is someone who lacked credibility as press secretary.
International Homo of Mystery
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:37 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):
Yes, actually, because Rather's credibility suffered greatly in that episode

But where does this man's credibility suffer? He did not make any accusations, he merely financially supported an organisation that had something to say that Sen. Kerry did not wish anybody to hear. This is called a sore loser getting even.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 21):
But where does this man's credibility suffer?

Ask the president, he withdrew the nomination.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
GuitrThree
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:48 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):
Yes, actually, because Rather's credibility suffered greatly in that episode, and the last thing the president would want is someone who lacked credibility as press secretary.

But everyone knows Tony Snow came from FOX news, so how credible can he be? According to those on the left, Fox, or as they like to call it, Faux is nothing but 100% propaganda.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:52 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 23):
But everyone knows Tony Snow came from FOX news, so how credible can he be?

If you recall, even Snow had some harsh words for the president before his appointment. But Snow didn't back an ill-researched exposé on Bush's military record that it turns out even a junior high-schooler could have seen through.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
GuitrThree
Posts: 1941
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:10 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 24):
If you recall, even Snow had some harsh words for the president before his appointment.

Yes, I do recall, and thanks for making my point that Bush actually hires people based on their ability to do the job, not simply 100% based on just politics.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 25):
thanks for making my point that Bush actually hires people based on their ability to do the job

There are any number of people who fall under that criteria. Not all do, however. No president's record is clean in that regard.
International Homo of Mystery
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:07 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 22):
Ask the president, he withdrew the nomination.

To save the man the embarrassment of being voted down. This just goes to prove that politics is behind all appointed jobs from Ambassador on down to U.S. Attorneys and beyond. If someone doesn't like your politics they will cut you down just to prove they can piss in taller weeds than you can. To bad for Mr. Fox and shame on Sen. Kerry.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:27 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 25):

Yes, I do recall, and thanks for making my point that Bush actually hires people based on their ability to do the job, not simply 100% based on just politics.

You mean like Michael Brown and supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers? Are those the people you're referring to who have the ability to do the job? And if Bush is so concerned about hiring people who are able to do their job without letting politics play a role, why did he just fire 8 US attorneys who had received stellar performance reviews? You wanna try again there Skippy?
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:41 am

Quoting OU812 (Reply 6):

It lives again.

Quoting Pope (Reply 7):
And the hypocrisy shows up once again. I guess you are for freedom of speech unless that speech disagrees with you.

Never said he didn't have the freedom to do what he did. Under law, he did nothing wrong. But again, this isn't about his speech. It's what he stood for, and if it's opposite of what the majority in Congress stands for, then it's tough cookies, Pope, is that not the case?

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
Quoting B777-700 (Reply 12):
Then attacking Fox's credibility as an embassador is perfectly permissible.

Absolutely

And it seems to me that's what happened here. His credibility was questioned-and it should have been. He played partisian politics, and the tables have been turned, nothing else. He deserved what he got.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
So by your standards Falcon thiis mean that if Dan Rather were to apply to replace Tony Snow the White House would be fully justified in denying him the job simply based on his false reporting of the Presidents military record?

Absoultely. The WH would be fully within its rights to do so, and that's just the way it is.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:46 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
He deserved what he got.

Just so we are clear... you're saying it's absolutely okay with you if a person is denied a position because of political affiliations?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 27):
To save the man the embarrassment of being voted down.

I seem to remember Harriet Miers withdrawing herself for similar reasons. Was that Sen. Kerry's fault too?
International Homo of Mystery
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:33 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
Just so we are clear... you're saying it's absolutely okay with you if a person is denied a position because of political affiliations?

People are denied because of that all the time. If by some stretch Dan Rather applied for said job, and the WH doesn't find him acceptable because of his politics, there's nothing wrong with that.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
B777-700
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
Just so we are clear... you're saying it's absolutely okay with you if a person is denied a position because of political affiliations?

Not any more so that the people hired to rebuild Iraq.  Yeah sure

Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html
If you don't chew Big Red, then @#$% you.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:57 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
Was that Sen. Kerry's fault too?

Nope, virutually every President in modern history (since Nixon) has had to pull a nominee or two. Unfortunately politics is more important than getting the right people in the right position.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
Absoultely. The WH would be fully within its rights to do so, and that's just the way it is.

Then the matter of the U.S. attorneys is solved.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 34):
Then the matter of the U.S. attorneys is solved.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention, it isn't the politics of the U.S. attorneys situation, it was whether there was lying to Congress involved in it.
International Homo of Mystery
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:50 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
it isn't the politics of the U.S. attorneys situation, it was whether there was lying to Congress involved in it.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/21933/
"Our goal is to get to the bottom of what happened, why it happened and who was involved in devising and implementing this plan," Leahy said.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...le?AID=/20070328/OPINION/703280322

Why did the Justice Department fire eight U.S. attorneys last year? The administration has not come up with a clear, convincing reason. Six of the eight were investigating Republican corruption. Much evidence, including e-mail from the Justice Department, indicates that the U.S. attorneys were fired because they were probing criminal activities of Republicans or refusing to conduct unwarranted investigations of Democrats. I look forward to learning, with the help of the House and Sen. Patrick Leahy's Senate Judiciary committees, what the real story is.


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_104338.asp

The real issue is that U.S. Attorneys should not be fired for partisan reasons whether the political party in power is Democrat or Republican. U.S. Attorneys, who are such an important and integral part of the U.S. justice system, should be appointed much in the same way we appoint judges. U.S. Attorneys should never be removed from their position due to partisan political reasons. It was wrong when President Clinton did it, and it is wrong when President Bush does it.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...007/03/29/midmorning1/?rsssource=1

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have accused the Bush administration of misleading them on why the firings happened and who was involved.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070328/28sampson.htm

Lying does not seem to make it into the top ten questions.

Meanwhile......

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660206546,00.html

WASHINGTON --- The House approved a bill Monday that would fix a provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to put interim U.S. attorneys in place for an indefinite amount of time without Senate confirmation.
The change is at the heart of the recent controversy surrounding the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys due to the timing of its passage into law and the Justice Department's still-unclear decisionmaking process on which attorneys needed to be replaced. The Senate passed a similar bill last week and the White House said Monday that it will not oppose the legislation.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2007032...ointment_of_interim_u_s__attorneys

"This legislation restores Constitutional checks and balances in the appointment process of interim U.S. Attorneys. It removes a loophole inserted by the prior Republican Congress that permits the indefinite appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation.

I know you would like this to be about lying, but from the Senate and House judiciaries view, it's all about politics plain and simple. They see this as a way to embarrass the Administration and nothing more. You notice that in all the huff and puff from Pelosi, she does not mention that the attorneys will still serve at the leisure of the President. Mr. Fox paid a similar price for allowing his money to speak for him which obstensibly is his right to do, unless of course you are John Kerry and you can get some pay back from someone pretty removed from the process.

One thing I did come across while checking back on related articles, seem John Conyers has decided to outsource the job of investigating the firings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/..._go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors_265

Conyers , meanwhile, has signed a contract with the law firm Arnold & Porter worth up to $225,000 through the end of the year to help with the investigation.

Republicans said the contract, which was first reported by The Washington Times, was evidence that Democrats were willing to invest taxpayer money in efforts to conduct political investigations of the administration.


Guess those House staffers just ain't what they used to be. I wonder if this will just be the first 225k wasted in trying to pin something, anything, that they can hang some trumped up impeachment charge on?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:57 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 34):
Then the matter of the U.S. attorneys is solved.

I knew that's where Mdorbust's question was headed.  Big grin

See what Aerowesty said in reply #35. It wasn't that they got fired. That happens all the time, but apparently that our top law enforcement officer lied to Congress about what was behind the firings, and about his involvement in those firings. I have no problem with the firings themselves, but I do have a problem with the AG of the United States lying about it.

But I guess lying is only a huge sin if it's a Democrat doing it, eh?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:24 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
but I do have a problem with the AG of the United States lying about it.

As I said in and another thread, first you have to prove he was lying. When this first came up he was not under any oath. It was at a briefing on another matter. What remains unclear is whether the firings were on the agenda for the briefing or whether Sen. Boxer just brought the matter up out of the blue. If it was the former I would have expected the AG to be prepared to present the facts in the matter. If it was the latter, which I suspect is the case, then I find no fault in the AG not having complete recollection of the events that transpired, some 2 years earlier, leading up to the dismissals. The AG did try to follow up with corrected information with Sen. Boxer later that day but was rebuffed and it appears as if Sen. Boxer didn't care to hear the correct information. Nowhere in any of the stories does it say that either the House or the Senate judiciaries are concerned that the AG might have lied to them. Their concern is that the firings were some how political. Yet even if they were, that is completely within the Presidents purview since they all serve at the Presidents leisure.

Of course not confirming someone to be an Ambassador because he or she exercised their first amendment rights and contributed to a 527 group that was operating by the rules is not political and is completely above reproach in your view. I assume your view would be the same had the Republicans retained control and denied someone an Ambassadorship due to their writing a check to Moveon.org?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:53 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 38):
When this first came up he was not under any oath.

We've already been through this. Stop beating the damned horse. You don't have to be under oath to commit a felony by lying to Congress. Move on.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
Never said he didn't have the freedom to do what he did. Under law, he did nothing wrong. But again, this isn't about his speech. It's what he stood for, and if it's opposite of what the majority in Congress stands for, then it's tough cookies, Pope, is that not the case?

So you're saying that it's not what he said but that he held certain political beliefs and therefore should be denied a job by the US government for those political beliefs. How is that not right at the center of the 1st Amendments Free Expression?

How would you feel if the administration denied social security benefits to anyone who opposed the war in Iraq? How do you reconcile the two cases?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:14 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 39):
You don't have to be under oath to commit a felony by lying to Congress.

That's right, I forgot, you never were able to show that he actually lied were you.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:22 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 41):
That's right, I forgot, you never were able to show that he actually lied were you.

Look, I'm not going to rehash history with you. Perhaps you should just read the news, or horrors, listen to what his assistant said before Congress yesterday. Take the blinders off, smell the coffee, find a dog to love, etc.

This thread is about the withdrawal of the ambassador's nomination. If you want to make yourself feel better about your buddy the AG, someone the White House is actively floating names to replace, do it in another thread.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 40):
So you're saying that it's not what he said but that he held certain political beliefs and therefore should be denied a job by the US government for those political beliefs.

Exactly. You don't think people are not denied jobs, whether they're liberal or conservative, for their beliefs? Of course they are. And, unfortunately, for Mr. Fox, he picked the wrong time to be nominated for this ambasadorship. He had to get through the very people he smeared in '04. How poetic is that.

It happens all the time.

Quoting Pope (Reply 40):
How is that not right at the center of the 1st Amendments Free Expression?

Are you saying that by making it clear he wouldn't be confirmed, that his 1st Amemdment rights were violated?

What are you smoking?

Quoting Pope (Reply 40):
How would you feel if the administration denied social security benefits to anyone who opposed the war in Iraq?

How do you equate that to what Mr. Fox's situation? He was going for a job, not getting a government benefit. Apples and oranges, man.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43):
How do you equate that to what Mr. Fox's situation? He was going for a job, not getting a government benefit. Apples and oranges, man.

How so? Just because you say it? There's a ton of caselaw out there that says that there's no difference. Hell, if this wasn't a government job that required Senate confirmation (and therefore implicating the justiciability issue), there is absolutely no way this would withstand judicial review. The man is being denied a GOVERNMENT job because of his personal political beliefs.

Do you think that a janitor at the DoJ can be asked whether or not he supported the democrat or the republican in the last election?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43):
Are you saying that by making it clear he wouldn't be confirmed, that his 1st Amemdment rights were violated?

I'm saying that this sort of action by the Senate creates what is known as a "chill" on free speech. Furthermore, I'm saying its hypocritical for the Senate (and you who applaud their acts) to simultaneously be criticizing the administration for firing political appointees for political purposes and then denying a political appointee because of his political beliefs. Schumer can't have it both ways, government service should be apolitical or we should recognize that political appointees will act politically. He wants it both ways and that it simply hypocritical.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
This thread is about the withdrawal of the ambassador's nomination

Which I have addressed in every post save one. You on the other hand brought this up...

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, it isn't the politics of the U.S. attorneys situation, it was whether there was lying to Congress involved in it.

Then when you can't back up your statement you want to tell me to quit beating a dead horse?  rotfl  When you come up with an article that says the AG is being charged let me know until then why don't you stick to the topic? I equated the withdrawal of Mr. Fox's nomination due simply to Sen. Kerry's grudge against whom he politically supported to the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys because they did not fully support the administrations polices. All political moves yet it's ok deny one person a job based on that theory yet somehow wrong to let 8 others go.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43):
Are you saying that by making it clear he wouldn't be confirmed, that his 1st Amemdment rights were violated?

Fox's 1st amendment rights were violated in that he supported an opponent of Sen. Kerry and although there seems to be no other viable reason to deny him the job, that is the core of what happened. Sen. Kerry should be ashamed of himself but not surprisingly, he isn't.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
B777-700
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 44):
Do you think that a janitor at the DoJ can be asked whether or not he supported the democrat or the republican in the last election?

No. Janitors dont have to do thru Senate confirmation. Ambassadors do. Sucks don't it?

And get off your high horse Pope, the GOP does the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html

If you were a Dem or a Dem supporter, you were denied a gov't job regardless of your skills.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to convince yourself that was different and ok.  Yeah sure

Cue the excuses...
If you don't chew Big Red, then @#$% you.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:11 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45):
You on the other hand brought this up...

Sorry, try again, you brought it up here:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 34):
Then the matter of the U.S. attorneys is solved.

This is just getting mundane and off-topic. I won't play these games with you.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 46):
And get off your high horse Pope, the GOP does the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html

If you were a Dem or a Dem supporter, you were denied a gov't job regardless of your skills.

#1 you've never seen me defend that.

#2 as I've said, this is clearly within the Senate's perogative, though it is highly hypocritical. But then, when has hypocrisy ever stopped Congress?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Swift Boat $$ Contiributer Get's Paid Back

Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45):
Sen. Kerry should be ashamed of himself but not surprisingly, he isn't.

Wasn't it President Bush who ultimately withdrew the nomination? But, as usual, in your eyes, he gets a pass.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 192 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos