Jump to content

I Adore This Man


Alptraum

Recommended Posts

Ya know, I can sympathize with how you feel. That is precisely how I felt when Clinton pardoned *dozens* of felons on his way out of office. Bush made a serious mistake with pardoning Scooter Libby, but then it's not the first mistake he's made. Just try to keep things in perspective, Clinton was as dirty and crooked as they get, but our country survived him. We'll survive Bush too. The main thing is that we all come together and try to get some better people into the White House and Congress in the future.

I do have a problem with the news reporter in that clip though, he was dripping with venom toward Bush. That's fine in a personal opinion, but the last thing we need is people pulling this country apart any more than it already is. Bush's approval rating is horrible, Congresses is even worse. IMHO, the reason is that at any given time at least half the country doesn't think the government is working for their best interests. Why? Because we know damn good and well that most of the people in government aren't - on either side. Between corruption and the our-side vs. your-side mentality we're lucky if any decent laws get passed at all. What we need is for both sides to go take a flying leap and get some people in there that will work for the best interests of the country instead of themselves or their 'team'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an even more relevant difference.

Clinton WAS President. Bush IS President.

I'll never understand why the knee jerk reaction of so many people to criticism (or invective) against Bush is to effectively say, "Well, Clinton was bad too!!"

I mean...what the hell does that mean? We're not -talking- about Clinton. He's ancient history now. We can talk about him too, if you want, but lets keep our conversations straight. Whatever Clinton might have done or not done doesn't change what George the Younger and his band of merry men most assuredly HAS done, and IS doing.

Anyway, our previous poster has a point as far as both parties go, but I disagree that the solution is to "back up our president." It is HIS job to back US up. A job he is willfully ignoring. He serves us. Not vice versa. That is one issue I will never accept compromise on, divisive as it may be. It's a keystone; one of the principles on which the United States is supposed to be based. Government serves at the people's pleasure. It was a radical departure from the normal way of doing things at the time. By now, constant little compromises to it have all but reversed it...to the point when the President himself can not only be elected against the will of the people, but can safely ignore the will of the people when making policy. So yeah, I'm drawing the line on those compromises, if only for myself. This far, no further.

*cough*

Yes. Anyway. Some good points in the post too.

Edit - Reread Fox's post, and I need to insert a mea culpa. He never said we should back Bush up...he just noted that Olberman was angry at Bush...which I won't deny...and intimated that such venom was counterproductive due to widening already gaping gaps between political realities in the United States.

My apologies, Mr. Fox, for misrepresenting your message. I leave my original text both to avoid revisionism, and because I think my point is also worth making, even if it's not actually in reaction to yours. smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Clinton was crooked and dirty regarding his personal life.

Bush is crooked and dirty regarding the actions he takes on behalf of the nation.


I wasn't talking about his personal life, I was comparing apples to apples. Pardons to pardons.

I'm saying get some perspective. Bush pardoned one man. Clinton pardoned dozens of felons.

IS/WAS makes no difference. I'm not saying Bush can get away with it because Clinton did, the both should serve the sentences of those they lawfully but very unethically pardoned. (The President does have the lawful right to pardon whomever he/she pleases regardless of guilt. It's one of the powers of the office. Not a smart one to use the way either Bush or Clinton used it however. Clinton was at least smart enough to do it on his last day in office.)

This isn't about I like Bush, I don't like either party at this point. I used to like Bush, I don't anymore. What I was trying to say in my post was that I understand completely how you feel about what Bush just did. I felt the same way when the President I despised did exactly the same thing but even bigger.
And what I hoped to get across with my post is that the venom that announcer was dripping doesn't do this country any good. We need to unite not divide, and by unite I mean vote all of those corrupt bastards out of office next time around, REP and DEM and keep doing it until people go into office not expecting to serve more than one term unless they really impress the people with their efforts. Pipe dream I know, but with congresses' approval rating right now, we've got a better chance of cleaning house than ever before.

(Lily, thank you for your passion and your perception.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fox:

Bush commuted the sentence of Libby before the man served day one in jail, before the fracking appeals process was even completed, without any consulation with the DoJ. It was, in purest fashion, an assurance to Libby that he'd not actually be inconvenienced in any way for keeping his mouth shut. Also, by holding off on the full pardon, there's the spiffy side effect of keeping Libby's 5th-Amendment refusal-to-testify ability in play.

Clinton, on the other hand, had the decency to wait until time had been served by the folks he pardoned; the stink of "you won't have to serve time" was absent there, as was the blatent effort of ensuring that closed mouths would stay closed.

As for pardoning "dozens of felons", yes - at the end of his time in office, as has every President for ages. Bush will as well at the end of his.

If you honestly are going to claim that Clinton's deal was "bigger" than Bush's, you're delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Mr Fox

And what I hoped to get across with my post is that the venom that announcer was dripping doesn't do this country any good. We need to unite not divide, and by unite I mean vote all of those corrupt bastards out of office next time around, REP and DEM and keep doing it until people go into office not expecting to serve more than one term unless they really impress the people with their efforts. Pipe dream I know, but with congresses' approval rating right now, we've got a better chance of cleaning house than ever before.


*points up*

What he said. Without question, there's a need for nothing less than a re-envisioning of the American political process. Not so much a rewriting of statute, but a revivification of the -unwritten- rules of conduct that have atrophied under a tidal wave of overspecialized voting blocs and monied interests.

By my estimation, Bush's Presidency is a symptom of a much deeper and more troubling problem with the system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Ptesan-Wi
Clinton, on the other hand, had the decency to wait until time had been served by the folks he pardoned; the stink of "you won't have to serve time" was absent there, as was the blatent effort of ensuring that closed mouths would stay closed


If you check the names of who Clinton pardoned, you will find a man by the name of Mark Rich. Mark Rich, a wealthy oil broker, skipped out on paying 125 million in taxes, and was convicted in absentia. He had fled to Switzerland and lived in Europe as a fugitive from justice.

Mark Rich's wife, who could still come and go freely to the US, donated a million dollars to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial campaign. Sure enough, on Bill's last day in office, he pardons Mark Rich. How is that for a quid pro quo.

You're right though: what Bush did, is nothing like what Clinton did. (sarcasm)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's really not meaningless. Bush is a little leaguer compared to those guys. Keep some perspective here. Bush is a pain in the ass, and has made some really bad decisions. And yes his latest move is a massively boneheaded bit of abuse of power, but it is nothing compared to what has been done by truly evil men. Instead of focusing on how much you hate Bush for whatever reason, lets put our energy towards making the country better in the future. Bush only has a year and a half left, nothing we can do about him. What he did was truly stupid, but was totally legal. And despite Bush and Clinton's abuse of power, I really do like the fact that the president and governors have the authority to pardon people. How much worse would it be if an innocent person couldn't be pardoned when the need arises.

What we can do instead of raging against what we can't change, is rejoice in our system and the fact that Bush only has a year and a half before we the people get to choose his replacement. Let's work toward replacing him with someone better; someone not cut from the same old politics as usual mold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I'm about ready to chuck a rock at your fucking head, new fish.


Now see this is what I'm talking about. There are no smileys attached to that statement to suggest Seph is anything but serious. Take several deep breaths and console yourself with the fact that Bush's time is almost up. Just as I did during Clinton's presidency. (And am doing now during Bush's.)

The last thing this country needs is reporters or anyone spouting hate and making this country more divided. We don't all have to agree with each other, or even like our Presidents, but ultimately we need to focus on the fact that we are in this together and try to make the place better for our having been here not worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dustbin
Is violence the only arguement you have left? Typical.


Oh, boo hoo hoo, the pinko is calling me out on using violence (or in this case, hyperbolic hostility) to solve (or in this case, aggravate) my issues with people. Rope it in, will you? If you know me well enough to call that kind of reaction "typical", then you probably know damn well that violence isn't the only "arguement" I have left; it's a tactic I employ to dismiss idiots who do dumbfuck things like quote scripture at me like it had any relevance to the real world.

The fact of the matter is, your assertion didn't merit any more from me than aggressive dismissal.

Originally Posted By: Mr. Fox
Now see this is what I'm talking about. There are no smileys attached to that statement to suggest Seph is anything but serious. Take several deep breaths and console yourself with the fact that Bush's time is almost up. Just as I did during Clinton's presidency. (And am doing now during Bush's.)

The last thing this country needs is reporters or anyone spouting hate and making this country more divided. We don't all have to agree with each other, or even like our Presidents, but ultimately we need to focus on the fact that we are in this together and try to make the place better for our having been here not worse.


And who the fuck are you, the Politeness Police? I didn't attach any humor because I wasn't kidding. My position has nothing to do with politics and everything with people trying to police criticism, as if we live in some pollyanna nanny state where we all have to be friends. It has zero to do with my personal politics - a subject upon which I don't polarize either way, thanks - and everything to do with being angry about someone trying to wrap up a vast and complex issue by glibly citing a fucking Bible verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Oh, boo hoo hoo, the pinko is calling me out on using violence (or in this case, hyperbolic hostility) to solve (or in this case, aggravate) my issues with people. Rope it in, will you? If you know me well enough to call that kind of reaction "typical", then you probably know damn well that violence isn't the only "arguement" I have left; it's a tactic I employ to dismiss idiots who do dumbfuck things like quote scripture at me like it had any relevance to the real world.


Funny thing happened on the way to a rational discussion. First came the ad hominem attacks. Then came the namecalling. Finally, smug self-superiority asserted itself in a grand orgy designed to kill the message, by killing the messenger.

No wonder there's no longer be any honest political discussion. One side doesn't want discussion, just total domination.

Attack the arguements, not the the person making them. I know you can do better than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusty? Comparing item A to item B because you can't discuss the merits of item A isn't a rational discussion. It's gutless. There will always be something awful to compare anything to. It's a circular argument that produces nothing.

Bush has nothing to do with Clinton. Every President executes the power of the pardon. Some do it less honorably than others. But if you're not able to recognize the issues that this particular issue has in this particular case you can't engage in a a discussion because you aren't willing to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot one thing, dude. First came the pathetic special pleading fallacy, that irrelevant pfil about rock-chucking. That statement is a crutch people lean on to support the idea that only those who are blameless, sinless, and effectively perfect are capable to judge others, which is clearly a load of horseshit, since to live is to judge others. Everyone does it every goddamn day of their life, so you can silence that noise right out, to say nothing of the fact that if we abided that dictate, only children - very young children - would sit on any jury or in the seat of any judge.

Also, that Biblical passage wasn't about glass houses, it was about stoning someone to fucking death. Having a political debate - or even calling someone a scat-munching, pus-filled rectal boil - is about a mile fucking away from brutally murdering someone, so statements like "He without sin, cast the first stone" are irrelevant; we're talking about hanging elected politicians in effigy in the court of public opinion, at worst. Jesus' sad little plea about the adultress was a call for empathy and sympathy, something that I lack entirely for old, rich, white men who've never known a day of pain in their privilaged little lives. So thanks, I'll prepare my bucket of rocks. That reminds me - let's not think of the name-calling as ad hominem. It's an ad hominem attack if I undermine your argument by pointing out that you're morally incapable of making such a stand because you rape puppies; calling you an asshole is just the garnish on today's debate blue plate special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
It's an ad hominem attack if I undermine your argument by pointing out that you're morally incapable of making such a stand because you rape puppies;


I think I nearly sprayed soda all over the keyboard. That's funny.

Now to put things in terms that you won't think too pollyanna-ish.

Our country is fucked if our elected officials don't start working together instead of against each other. It's not about lets all hold hands and sing a catchy tune in a Coca-cola commercial. It's about our congress not accomplishing anything useful in ages because they are too busy fighting each other and trying to win points for their 'team' to get anything accomplished. Not to mention their extracurricular activities with under aged interns, accepting bribes from lobbyists, using our tax money to travel etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the original topic of discussion, I do not generally support Bush in his decisions. Could I do a better job myself? I don't fucking know. I'd probably be too busy masturbating or watching cartoons to car (Whoo! I'm a real American now!). I do NOT support this idea of pardoning Libby, but that is because I have personal issues with Libby which I will save until someone asks me.

As for DustBuster or whatever the fuck his name is being a god damned retard for quoting a several fucking thousand year old saying in relation to some other retarded situation, I don't fucking care. He can be a retard, and Seph can be a whinny little girl about something insignificant. I'm sure both were bound to happen eventually.

And third, Mr. Fox, yes. I do believe that people should fucking get something done with congress. They are paid some fucking obsurd amount of dollars to do a fucking job, and they're too busy masturbating each other to do. You know what else? People need to stop starving. DustBuster needs to not be a fuck, and Seph needs some anger management.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other. Now thats a saying I can get behind. However, these people that are paid to do their fucking job need to do their fucking job, or maybe we need to do something like.. well. Not elect them? Fucking crazy talk! The idea behind democracy is 'For the people, by the people'. By the people. Being corrupt takes to politics like stink on shit, but there is something we can actively do against the corrupt fucks.

And for the record, I do endorse street-style justice. But we all know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lina
Seph can be a whinny little girl about something insignificant.


You can say this without putting women down, you know. You could just say that Seph is whiny, or whiny like a brat, or whiny like a child. There's no need to drag your hatred of women into the discussion.

Of course, you're on the record as not actually caring about others, so I guess I'm only mentioning this for the sake of form and those who are observing this train wreck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I must admit all this has gotten me to admire Mr. Fox.

It should also be noted that presidential conduct is always compared to previous presidential conduct. Its the only real barometer to judge it against. Bush's pardons will be compared to Clinton's pardons. Its not just about what level of outrage is felt over letting someone who is (supposedly) guilty go, but what previous presidents have done with the power.

My saying for the moment is: Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Mr Fox
Our country is fucked if our elected officials don't start working together instead of against each other.
I'm not sure. Congress actually *doing* something has the very large tendancy to mess things up rather than be productive.

Largely this is because there are real limits on what the gov can do and what it should be doing, and (much worse) Congress likes to do things that attract attention rather than good things. I'm under the impression that the typical Congressman does NOT have much understanding of economics or science and much of the legislation coming out of there reflects this.

For one example of many, every now and then Congress decides to "do something" about high gas prices... but the villian of the piece is usually the oil companies and not government restrictions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Doctor Nova Madigan
You could just say that Seph is whiny, or whiny like a brat, or whiny like a child.


You can say this without putting brats or children down, you know. There's no need to drag your hatred of children or brats into the discussion.

I expected more from you Flicker... <sigh>

wink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, the system is broken. The Ballot is dead. We can't "heal" the country but ignoring the wrong doings of the head of state. Comparing Billie to W is like comparing W to Stalin. Both are false and really do not matter.

Further more the idea that because someone else did, it must be right is false. I do now and never agreed with Bill's actions. I do not claim he was a saint, but to compare him to W, well let's just say if you look W's flaws to Bills..I say Bill would be rather shiny. Still there is no point in comparing them to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Alptraum
This is blatantly political, so don't watch if you don't care.
Wow!!! Finally got a chance to see it. If I didn't know what he was talking about, I'd think that Libby was a mass murderer or something. The pardon of Libby doesn't seem on the face of it to be illegal, much less then "end of the union".

(Still watching) And now he's rattling off a very large and wandering series of charges. That's a tactic designed to shield weak arguments rather than support strong ones. It's a pity since some of them are reasonable and really should have more weight than hot air.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(After thinking about for a while)

The core problem with his argument (i.e. that Libby not being in jail ends the republic) is there's no alligation of misconduct... i.e. the guy suggested Bush had Libby do illegal things for him with a pardon backing him up if he got caught. That would be seriously wrong and worth forcing Bush out of office... but the problem then becomes "what" illegal things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courier,

You are absolutely right, sometimes or perhaps even often congress' accomplishments are worse than nothing being done at all. However, we are pretty much being sold down the river right now. Everyone knows social security is screwed and that it likely won't be there by the time we get to retirement, (or we'll have to be 80 to retire by that point). One easy partial fix would be to make the social security fund that we pay into each year off limits to congress. Every year congress takes the money in the fund and spends it and leave an IOU in the kitty. It gets paid back with the next years taxes, but think of how much more money would be in the fund if congress would just leave it alone to collect interest every year. Extremely simple fix, but of course congress can't keep it's hands out of the kitty.

That's the sort of things I'm talking about. There are lots of things that could be accomplished easily if we had a congress that was working for the best interests of the country instead of their own interests.

Jager,

I definitely don't think we should overlook W's faults and any wrong doing. I do think that Bill was much dirtier than W though. The Libby thing is a matter of W covering for his ally by abusing the power of the presidency. Bill abused the power of the office by pardoning dozens of felons, one of which was Mark Rich who then donated 1 million dollars to his wifes congressional campaign. That sounds like bribery to me which is more than an abuse of power, that's actually illegal. That to me sounds worse than what W just did. Not that I'm defending W, I've grown to like him less and less as his presidency has continued. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. Bush is a lightweight on the evil scale, Clinton is a lightweight. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Muslim extremism, Christian Fundamental extremism, any kind of extremism, those are evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Mr Fox

Jager,
I definitely don't think we should overlook W's faults and any wrong doing. I do think that Bill was much dirtier than W though. The Libby thing is a matter of W covering for his ally by abusing the power of the presidency. Bill abused the power of the office by pardoning dozens of felons, one of which was Mark Rich who then donated 1 million dollars to his wifes congressional campaign. That sounds like bribery to me which is more than an abuse of power, that's actually illegal. That to me sounds worse than what W just did. Not that I'm defending W, I've grown to like him less and less as his presidency has continued. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. Bush is a lightweight on the evil scale, Clinton is a lightweight. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Muslim extremism, Christian Fundamental extremism, any kind of extremism, those are evil.


It's getting offtopic for me to say this, since I must invoke activities beyond the scope of Libby, but I can't stay silent. smile The cronyism displayed by W's administration is orders of magnitude beyond any other administration in history. I can't lay all of that at Bush's feet, of course. Other ranking officials played their parts too...but as President Bush has to be the final responsible party. The Mark Rich thing is -peanuts- compared to the payoffs and conflicting interests that riddle his administration.

...of course, now I'm doing the same thing I ranted about...comparing one bad case to another as if to justify the lesser of the two. Bahaha. It's so evilly tempting. Seriously though, I'm not trying to excuse any of Clinton's wrongdoing. And for my last trick...

"...Christian Fundamental extremism, any kind of extremism, those are evil."

You -do- realize that Bush W is quite extremely fundamental Christian, right? wink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lily
The cronyism displayed by W's administration is orders of magnitude beyond any other administration in history.
Bush's problems aren't cronyism or even corruption. I think the Rollingstone sums up his problems pretty well.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

Bush IMHO isn't evil, nor is he especially corrupt. He’s (most likely) a good, decent man… in the wrong job.

One of his problems is less what he does than the way he does it. Gore might have been able to bring more of the UN around for the war in Iraqi (and a strong argument can be made that it would have happened even without Bush. Further, a strong argument can be made for some (although by no means all) of his excesses on the subject of the rule of law, basically coming down to 9-11 being a law enforcement paradigm failure (Al Kida is closer to being an army than to being a criminal enterprise).

But Bush tends to see a world of Grey in Black/White and to not learn from his mistakes.

Quote:
You -do- realize that Bush W is quite extremely fundamental Christian, right? wink
The problem with fundamentalism is they (including Bush) tend to think their beliefs should affect reality rather than vise versa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't vouch for his goodness or decency...though many of the things I've read suggest he can be a pretty vindictive, unpleasant person when crossed. But he's hardly alone in that...

You're right that cronyism and corruption aren't the BIG problems, though I believe they contribute to the larger issues.

The foundations of it all come to Bush's own personality, and the people he surrounded himself with.

I think the resurrection of Star Wars was where the first warning signs about his personality kicked in. That and it's bizarre, wholehearted support despite massive doubts among the scientific community and test after failed test. That's where we caught a glimpse of Post 9-11 Bush. Trusting loyalty more than qualifications. Trusting faith more than logic and empirical evidence. Liable to mistake stubborn doggedness for determination. Unwilling to concede in any way, regardless of cost. Signs of what I believe to be a deeply insecure person who's in way over his head and trying to at least APPEAR to be competent.

Then we come to the coterie. Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...these are old names in Washington politics, and are as corrupt as it gets. They had an agenda from day 1, and used Bush and the disaster to push it through. Another name they're often associate with is that of Leo Strauss. Strauss is noted for espousing a political policy based on an "enlightened" ruling elite that maintains power through skillful deceit of the masses.

Sound familiar?

The corruption and cronyism contribute to the problem of credibility, I think...but you're right in saying that they're not the MAJOR problems (and that's pretty sad, given that the cronyism is the worst ever...see Ken Lay, Wolfowitz's girlfriend at the World Bank, the lawyer firings...sort of 'anti-cronyism' there...etc). The major problem is the administration's repeated and unrepentant rejection of the rule of law. This too is often associated with Straussism, who believed laws were for the little people...that the ruling elite must not be constrained by such things. Note the similarity in language that the administration uses...terming laws as "constraining," and stating "our hands must be free." This even in the face of documented misuse of those unconstrained hands.

These are, I think, 'things he does' though. His signing statements, coupled with subsequent failure to enforce or selective enforcement of laws is nothing less than a failure of his constitutional duty. That is a thing he does. Other offenses, such as failure to adhere to judgments of courts, failure to respond to subpoenas, failure to cooperate with investigations...these are all far from simple procedural issues. Any other citizen would be up on charges, including obstruction of justice. The fact that it's rarely the President -personally- is a point fairly made, but it's important to remember that, as Chief Executive, Bush has a lot of responsibility to go with that power. Ultimately the word that comes down in the executive branch comes from him, and he has to be prepared to take the heat for offenses his administration commits...especially if he takes no actions to punish or correct them, and even MORE especially if one of the primary offenders is his very own VP.

I just can't agree that it's his methods that earn him the title of worst president. These are all actions, or lack of actions. Granted, his methods are terrible too, but that only tightens the noose. It's what he does that puts it around his neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Other offenses, such as failure to adhere to judgments of courts...
Not sure what you mean here. I think the last time a President openly disobeyed the courts was with Jackson and the Indians.
Quote:
, failure to respond to subpoenas, failure to cooperate with investigations...these are all far from simple procedural issues. Any other citizen would be up on charges, including obstruction of justice.
Any other citizen wouldn't be dealing with these things to begin with.

In large part what's going on is a political fight between Congress and the President. They were elected to stop the war and deal with the President. That’s fine as far as it goes, but as they’ve been pretty open about the real purpose of some of these investigations being a simple case of “got-cha” of course the Executive branch is going to resist. The Constitutional roll for Congress in this situation is to simply defund the war. They don’t have the authority to micromanage it (the Prez is commander) nor do they have the authority to micromanage the Presidency itself (Executive privilege).

Libby’s case means that pretty near everyone is going to have to take the 5th from now on, because parts of Congress are insisting these investigations be under oath. Keep getting people to testify under oath and sooner or later you’ll get two or more to disagree, or you’ll get someone in a mis-truth. People aren’t computers, memory isn’t perfect, and we do lie to ourselves. This situation is exactly why the 5th amendment exists.

From very, very early the special Prosecutor found that there was no crime in the Pflame case. So rather than halt the case, he kept investigating looking for someone, anyone, who’s head he could put on a wall. He got Libby. I hope Libby was lying because he had incorrectly assumed that someone in his office was guilty (the alternative is something more Duke-ish, that Libby was simply wrong in his remembering).

Quote:
especially if he takes no actions to punish or correct them, and even MORE especially if one of the primary offenders is his very own VP.
Again, not sure what you mean here.

These situations are the result of the Prez’s faults, not the cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...