Utopia Talk / Politics / The Democrats Are Investigating The CIA

Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:07:38 Do you think the next republican administration will put Obama's "Czars" under the legal microscope to see if any laws were broken? Would it be fair if they did?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:10:22 "Do you think the next republican administration will put Obama's "Czars" under the legal microscope to see if any laws were broken? " Why Czars? Bush''s czars are not being investigated and Bush had over 30 of them, iirc. Shouldn't Republicans also investigate the CIA in order for your retarded parallel to work., Rod?
roland Member	Sat Oct 03 08:10:55 Lol, I thought the thread is about the CIA.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:19:01 Under Bush it is claimed the CIA broke the law. Under Obama it is more likely the Czars are breaking the law. Are you saying that if laws were broken it is only republican law breakers that should be investigated while democratic law breakers should get a free pass to break any and all laws they want to?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:21:25 "Under Obama it is more likely the Czars are breaking the law. " Why? Because you claim it? CIA can break laws under Obama just as well, they have long history of doing it.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:28:16 I see. So it is *ONLY* the CIA, in your opinion, that should ever be investigated for wrong doing in *ANY AND ALL* political administrations. So you would sign a petition to expunge the record of "All The Presidents Men" along with Lewis Libby Jr. and all other non-CIA "criminals."
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:30:23 "So it is *ONLY* the CIA, in your opinion, that should ever be investigated for wrong doing in *ANY AND ALL* political administrations. " Absolutely not, retarded Rod. I just never got your retarded comparison. Why Czars? Was any of the Bush 30 czars investigated?
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:40:12 Bush did not have 30 Czars. And none of his Czars, for instance, ever threatened to cut the compensation of industry leaders that opposed his policies. None of his Czars ever threatened to tax an entire industry at a 90% plus tax rate. Nor did any of his Czars threaten to allow a tree to be represented in court. Nor any of a number of other *POSSIBLE* violations of contract law, Constitutional Rights, or common law.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:40:37 Shit!
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:44:02 http://en....of_U.S._executive_branch_czars 31 for GWB
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:44:25 btw, I called you Rod, why did you respond?
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:47:28 I stand corrected, guess I had him mixed up with his dad.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:48:27 CR - btw, I called you Rod, why did you respond? See my previous post. :(
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:50:27 "I stand corrected, " Exactly. Now you see my confusion on why your dumb ass decided to use czars, Rod.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:56:01 Who?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:56:50 czars, Rod, czars.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 08:58:08 Who?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:00:22 czars, dumbass
roland Member	Sat Oct 03 09:02:49 HR is senile.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:03:46 We all knew this moment would come for Rod.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:07:27 But isn't it funny how GWB appointed more people as czars than Obama?
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Oct 03 09:12:07 It's funny that Bush appointed "czars" period, but certain details such as that gets over-looked so more scrutiny can be placed on Obama.
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:14:36 ERR... George W. Bush 2001â??2009 -- 31 Barack Obama 2009â??____ -- 32 And Obama has appointed his in barely 8 months.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Oct 03 09:17:55 And so having a head start on who to appoint is a bad thing?
roland Member	Sat Oct 03 09:18:19 that's the number of position, not number of people appointed.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:18:49 ERR... I said appointed more people as czars. 46-35, retard
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:21:38 So who had the most Czar positions? I see 31 for Bush and 32 for Obama. People do come and go you know.
roland Member	Sat Oct 03 09:25:31 It isnt that funny that Bush has appointed so many czars, perhaps he really needed them. What is funny is republicans like HR cry about it without knowing that.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:25:51 What happened to ERR..., lmao? "People do come and go you know. " Oh, its the positions you want to investigate, not people, Rod? How many of Bush's 46 czars were investigated by Obama?
Liberal Member	Sat Oct 03 09:27:21 CrownRoyal - I said appointed more people as czars. I missed that becvause I did not think even you would be stupid enough to compare an '8' year period against an '8' month period. The true indicator is in the number of positions.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Oct 03 09:28:30 Again, what is the problem being ahead of the game?
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Oct 03 09:31:53 Oh btw, 2001 and 2009 shows how LONG HE WAS IN OFFICE! God damn you are so fucking desperate. http://en....of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Paramount Member	Sat Oct 03 09:34:12 Hot Rod, "Do you think the next republican administration will put Obama's "Czars" under the legal microscope to see if any laws were broken? Would it be fair if they did?" You mean if the Republicans also would investigate the CIA? If there is suspicion that the CIA have done something illegal then it would be fair to investigate it. Don't you think? But why must the Republicans always do what Obama do?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: