English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do some people really think that corruption will out itself?

When Nixon was caught up in Watergate the White House protocol was to deny deny deny!

Every administration needs to be held accountable for their actions!!

There is a difference between what officials say and what they actually do!!

It is our responsibility to call them on it when this occurs!!

We have a checks and balances system for a reason!

Aren't you tired of people who are trying to tell the citizens what's really going on being called Anti-American or UnPatriotic!!??

I think they are brave heros who show Patriotism for the country and it's citizens above any particular political party!!

2007-08-05 10:01:12 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Heart and Troll: Once Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law he was no longer my 'boy'!!

When will people see that (D) & (R) are one in the same when it comes to Corporate America!!

I also thought the way Clinton's administration handled Waco was immoral and repugnant!!

I didn't care one bit about his affair with Monica but I really did want him impeached for perjury!!

To me it doesn't matter why you lie under oath!
A lie is still a lie!

I am tired of liars running our government!!

2007-08-05 10:34:08 · update #1

18 answers

Actually, the deny, deny, deny cliche was from your boy Bill.

2007-08-05 10:21:05 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1 1

I have no problems about the adminstration being held responsible..However, when the questioning of the administration is done in a clear partisan way and congress seems to be only spending millions of our tax $$ for headlines I have a problem.

For instance the President had the right to ask all of the federal prosecutors who were "fired" to resign. As a Federal prosecutor they served at the will of the President. It does not matter if they were fired for political reasons or for any reason at all.

As for Iraq.. well I wish we were not there and that we never invaded it. but does that mean we should re-hash it yet again.

I was just as mad when President Clinton was attacked for his sexual dilliances.. if the country votes in a president who has questionable morals.. well .. that is the country's choice..

I am curious about what you think of the FBI raid on a congressman's offices .. who was under investigation for bribery.. it is right that papers dealing with congressional business need to get returned but . . .

2007-08-05 17:11:53 · answer #2 · answered by Attorney 5 · 1 2

What ticks me off is that most people are more concerned about Lohan and Paris and what they're wearing than what's going on in the government (been that way now for about two decades now). Sick of both parties making promises then resorting back to political fighting and nothing getting done. Neither side listens anymore, and its whoever can shout louder gets heard, even if their wrong.

2007-08-05 17:12:28 · answer #3 · answered by rz1971 6 · 4 0

The fourth estate has been bought out by corporate America.
This began in the 1970,s and gets worse every year.
A true investigative journalist is rare, Bill Moyer is one of the few left, and those who contribute to the frontline series on PBS.

I agree whole heartily with you and some of the posters above me.

2007-08-05 17:07:00 · answer #4 · answered by somber 3 · 2 1

Due to the fact that this so-called "war on terror" will continue into infinity, we might as well admit we have lost our rights under the constitution. This is no longer the country we once knew and it appears to be acceptable to many people. Once your liberties are removed, how do you get them back? Should one's hatred of terrorism be an excuse to destroy the foundations of our country? Warrants and oversight should not be viewed as obstacles to fighting terrorism or the terrorists have already achieved much of what they intended. Not to mention the fact they are going to bankrupt us.

2007-08-05 17:23:56 · answer #5 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1 0

Not really. It identifies who Bush's enablers are. While I may support their right to an opinion, I won't ever agree with them. Our Constitution is in grave danger and the Republic is hanging on a slender thread. Its plainly evident that Bush stole the 2000 election and has no respect for civil rights or the rule of law. I EXPECT Bush's defenders to call those who would hold Bush accuntable " unpatriotic and un american " . They are living in a fantasy. I can discount these remarks.
Its what I would expect from a lynch mob of vigilantes.
These are folks you want to avoid.

2007-08-05 17:09:27 · answer #6 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1 2

Hooray for you...By challenging the established routine we question the authenticity of their decisions. I think it's commendable that any one do so but there are factions who don't like their authority exposed nor their ideologies questioned. These are the ones who have something to hide and resent anyone whose asks questions or is educated enough to think for themselves and pose a possible change or renovation to their concepts.

Thomas Jefferson in 1821 stated, "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, it's necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal Judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments".

2007-08-05 17:04:20 · answer #7 · answered by Don W 6 · 1 3

It's just a sign that they have no argument. It's a whole lot easier to call somebody "un-patriotic" then it is to come up with a reasonable argument for most "white house protocol"

2007-08-05 17:06:55 · answer #8 · answered by Franklin 7 · 3 1

Yes, I am tired of people trying to make something out to be a partisan attack, when partisan politics has nothing to do with the issue that many people are complaining about.

I don't care what party Bush or Cheney or Rove belong to.

Any individual who willfully violates federal laws should be punished. Any leader of the executive branch who violates his constitutional duty to "see that the laws are faithfully executed" should be removed from office. Any politician who declares himself above the law, and immune from the legal consequences of his actions, is corrupt and must be stopped.

I don't care what party they belong to. It's not a partisan issue. It's about following the rule of law and obeying the Constitution.

2007-08-05 17:04:37 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 3

im not tired of it at all...it IS liberal bias..if it isnt how come so many of your extremist pals are willing and eager to give the clintons a pass on the same thing

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

2007-08-05 18:55:13 · answer #10 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers