Bush's Confidence

[quote]micromuscle wrote:
The Congress was set up by our forefathers to keep the prez in check… So he wouldn’t abuse powers. There are many brains at work there, where there is one brain (questionably) at work inside Bush’s head…

I would trust the Congress, no matter who controlled it, Rep. or Dem., more than the fool we have living in the WhiteHouse (although he seems to run to the ranch more than he stays in D.C.). You guys are really defending a borderline retard.[/quote]

Here is the full text of the US Constitution:

This will come in handy before you start typing.

Even better:

“The Constitution for Kids: This file is intended for students in Kindergarten through 3rd grade”

It has pictures, too - so enjoy.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Even better:

“The Constitution for Kids: This file is intended for students in Kindergarten through 3rd grade”

It has pictures, too - so enjoy.[/quote]

Hysterical

[quote]ron33 wrote:

I get a kick out of this fellow also ,his points of veiw don’t jive with his civil war hero,if he reads his history his hero was another over rated drunk with a ton of problems,just happened to be a yes man in that good ol’ boys club of the time.
[/quote]

ronny,

I’ve always wanted to know which country you reside in.

Second, what in the name of Seth’s sweaty scrotum are you talking about?

Sherman was NOT A DRUNK. He most certainly wasn’t a yes man. In fact, he was accused of being insane when he didn’t go along with the prevailing political consensus of the time “this war will be over by Christmas.” Further, he didn’t listen to the prevailing military dogma of the time.

He was one of the pioneers of total war.

ronny, get serious.

JeffR

If there is nothing to hide in this firing scandal, then why have the emails in question been “lost” from the servers, as well as the machines that sent them?

This is nothing less than a typical Bush scandal. The argument that democrats are on a witch hunt is becoming an old alliby. At what point will this administration be held accountable for anything?

Clinton sure was held accountable, and if you think that was not a witchhunt, I recommend you review the definition.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ron33 wrote:

I get a kick out of this fellow also ,his points of veiw don’t jive with his civil war hero,if he reads his history his hero was another over rated drunk with a ton of problems,just happened to be a yes man in that good ol’ boys club of the time.

ronny,

I’ve always wanted to know which country you reside in.

Second, what in the name of Seth’s sweaty scrotum are you talking about?

Sherman was NOT A DRUNK. He most certainly wasn’t a yes man. In fact, he was accused of being insane when he didn’t go along with the prevailing political consensus of the time “this war will be over by Christmas.” Further, he didn’t listen to the prevailing military dogma of the time.

He was one of the pioneers of total war.

ronny, get serious.

JeffR

[/quote]

He must be talking about Grant.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
If there is nothing to hide in this firing scandal, then why have the emails in question been “lost” from the servers, as well as the machines that sent them?

This is nothing less than a typical Bush scandal. The argument that democrats are on a witch hunt is becoming an old alliby. At what point will this administration be held accountable for anything?

Clinton sure was held accountable, and if you think that was not a witchhunt, I recommend you review the definition. [/quote]

They are both witchhunts. The Republicans are reaping what they sowed in the Clinton years. I hate this part of politics.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

They are both witchhunts. The Republicans are reaping what they sowed in the Clinton years. I hate this part of politics.[/quote]

Both sides are corrupt in my opinion. We have the Giovannis on one side, and the Gambino’s on the other side. But sitll, wrong is wrong.