Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    I grant...? What about simply.....I give? hahahaha

    He doesn't give in - he just spews more senseless rhetoric over and over and over again. Let's dissect this Ted Kaczynski rant, shall we?

    I do not necessarily read everything...
    Well, unless it suits you.

    Anyway, I grant that Bush has had problems.
    Ahh I see...lets start of with this to disarm us all and make us think your so impartial....or should I say "fair and balanced".

    I grant that his vice president is a strong willed person.
    Yes, he is a bull head for sure. And I'm sure that makes him all the more noble and right in your mind. Because you know...he's only so secretive to protect us all from ourselves and the terrorists.

    I grant that Clinton was a crook
    Was he? In what way? Please be more specific.

    and lied under oath and tried to get other people to lie for him.
    The lie about the extra marital affair? Oh yes, that was horrible...it was. As compared to you know...having a staffer lie and obstruct justice to prevent justice reaching the white house over the outting of an undercover CIA agent.

    I grant that Hillary has no recollection of anything of value.
    Well she is an opportunist so I guess the implication here is that Bush isn't? Or did he get around to recollecting his missing year in the USAF Reserves? OR his coke habit? Or his DWI that Karen Hughes re-invented on the fly during his campaign? Or his convienient born again status because Karl Rove knew that was the only way to overcome his DWI, coke habits, boozing, etc.

    I grant that Gore cannot tell the truth about anything, whether it be the weather, his hours, his finances, his minerals, his...you know.
    No I don't. Please do tell. What lie did he tell about the weather?

    I grant that Ted Kennedy cannot remember if he swam or not.
    Oh yes, I thought we'd get you to toss in Teddy. You know because all moderate Dems and independents just line right up behind him....or so you and Rush L. would have the rest of the country think.

    I grant that John Kerry has a memory problem and probably should take a supplement.
    Must have been something that happend while he heroically served in harms way in combat while Bush was getting Daddy to pull strings and get him into the reserves...only to have him heroically skip out on his last year. Brave man that GW Bush. So brave of him to send troops to die in a desert without adequate planning, resources, or care when they return home as well. Brave brave man.

    I grant that most of guys say you want the fairness doctrine but in reality to not.
    What kind of fairness Ben? Your kind? You know the posting of rambling right-wing rhetoric without a hint of fairness? Ironic since your little rant here is filled with "unfairness" and unsubstantiated generalisms.

    I grant that you believe everyone wants to be liberal, but if that were so, Air America would not have gone bankrupt so quickly.
    I believe that? Really? Boy you teach me something about myself everday Ben. Amazing. Oh and nice touch about Air America. America rejected the station because they all want to be conservatives. How perfectly black and white of you to rationalize its demise that simplistically. You know, because it couldn't have been financing, poor business handling, lack of distribution of the show by stations owned by large media conglomerates, etc. NOpe. America rejected that show because they don't want to be "liberals".

    I know that everyone here wants the government to do the health care thing and points to Europe on how well it does, and yet no one acknowledges the real fact that places such as England has to increasingly import its doctors and that bunches of those doctors are from one of the nine or so medical training centers in Saudi Arabia and that recently a bunch of those doctors tried to blow up nice little English people.
    Wow. Your so frigging dilussional I don't even know where to begin with this leap in logic. I lived in the UK for years and while their system isn't perfect (nor is Canadas....nor is ours) it works. The importation of doctors from Arab countries is what led to the terrorist attacks...wow. So it wasn't poor immigration enforcement or something other than their health care system?

    I grant that Nancy and group have no credibility with the people and as a result are working very hard to regain their credibility by jumping this and jumping that - making them look even more foolish.
    Well I don't like her because she is an ineffective leader that is polarizing. That said, how Republican of you to mention jumping from one thing to another. Like the $75MM in tax payer money to jump from "travel gate" to "lying about a hummer" while the GOP was chasing Clinton for years on end?

    I grant that the majority of democrat legislators vote the party ticket and not how the majority of their constituants want them to (Hawaii is a big thing on this issue),
    Ahhh I see. Unlike the Republicans who had ZERO oversight over the most over reaching executive branch in our history? That is truly rich Ben...

    I grant that the republicans are almost as bad and are not angels themselves.
    Ahh...more of the fairness doctrine. I must have you all wrong Ben.

    I grant that Bush is not the most popular president and his efforts to shove the immigration bill down our throats was down right disgusting.
    That is it? That was his WORST act as President?

    I grant that the worst modern day president is Jimmy Carter and he wants to save the world so that Gore can save us all.
    Not even sure where to go with this one. Jimmy wasn't one of my favorites but he wasn't the worst by far. Bush has that one by a landslide. And I'll bet you $1 he'll go down in history as the worst....well according to 70% of Americans he will. And Gore wants to save us all? Do you mean in a divine intervention kind of way or in a scientifically backed kind of way?

    I grant that Greenland (or was it Iceland) was recently found to have been warm bunches of thousands of years ago, proving that global warming is a cycle thing.
    LOL...yes that settles it. More CO2 for everyone! Yea! Ben, the scientist has declared global warming to be a "cycle thing".

    I grant that an active volcano makes the pollution China is putting out to be nothing in comparison.
    Well if god can do that with a volcano then surely god wants us to continue piling on more pollution. Makes sense to me.

    Thank you Ben. I just love when you post this sort of stuff. It is TRULY revealing.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 07/08/2007 at 03:51 PM.
  2. #22  
    I could care less about politics, they all suck. My memory might fail me but didn't Clinton pardon the husband of some lady which gave him his biggest politcal contributions. Maybe she just donated to the party, my memory is fuzzy. Think the name was Mark Rich or something. Talking smack is part of the game.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ View Post
    I could care less about politics, they all suck. My memory might fail me but didn't Clinton pardon the husband of some lady which gave him his biggest politcal contributions. Maybe she just donated to the party, my memory is fuzzy. Think the name was Mark Rich or something. Talking smack is part of the game.
    Yes we've covered that already. Some Dems supported Clinton's decision. Some did not. Unlike the deafening silence from the 20+ GOP members who voted to impeach Clinton over obstruction of justice and are now apparently OK with obstruction of justice. The point is that Clinton did not commute the sentence of someone who hadn't served a day in jail after they were convicted of obstructing justice, especially obstructing justice from reaching the White House and possibly uncovering evidence implicating Bush/Cheney over the outting of a CIA operative.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 07/08/2007 at 03:39 PM.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Yes we've covered that already. Some Dems supported Clinton's decision. Some did not. Unlike the deafening silence from the 20+ GOP members who voted to impeach Clinton over obstruction of justice and are now apparently OK with obstruction of justice. The point is that Clinton did not pardon someone who hadn't served a day in jail after they were convicted of obstructing justice, especially obstructing justice from reaching the White House and possibly uncovering evidence implicating Bush/Cheney over the outting of a CIA operative.
    Bush didn't pardon Libby, not yet anyway.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ View Post
    Bush didn't pardon Libby, not yet anyway.
    You are correct. He commuted him. I'll edit my post to reflect the actual event and attempt to avoid any implication that he had to do it to keep his mouth shut.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You are correct. He commuted him. I'll edit my post to reflect the actual event and attempt to avoid any implication that he had to do it to keep his mouth shut.

    No need to edit, you know the pardon will come at the end of Bush's tem
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The telling silence - guys, I am no where near the mainland - morning for me is afternoon or evening in many cases for others...in addition, I do not necessarily read everything...

    Anyway, I grant that Bush has had problems.

    Blah blah blah..........


    Ben
    Really? Would one of them be, oh I don't know, hypocrisy?

    BTW, sorry about the implication of you not addressing my question as silence. But it still seems you have not addressed my question, why is that?
  8. #28  
    Calling any politician a hypocrite isn't really going out on a limb. Try making a bold statement like kids like candy.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ View Post
    Calling any politician a hypocrite isn't really going out on a limb. Try making a bold statement like kids like candy.
    True, but in this case we have someone who refuses to admit that the Bush admin is actually being hypocritical in the commutation of Libby.
    Last edited by NRG; 07/08/2007 at 06:06 PM.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ View Post
    I could care less about politics, they all suck. My memory might fail me but didn't Clinton pardon the husband of some lady which gave him his biggest politcal contributions. Maybe she just donated to the party, my memory is fuzzy. Think the name was Mark Rich or something. Talking smack is part of the game.
    for the record (this is from memory) Clinton had no direct relationship with Marc Rich.

    He pardoned Marc Rich because of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak -- who Clinton felt obliged towards as a result of Barak's putting himself in great political peril as Clinton quixotically tried to negotiate a peace deal between Arafat and Israel (a peace plan immediately rejected by junior when he stole into power -- despite Clnton asking if he could continue working on a peace process near to fruition, as an unofficial peace mediator).

    Marc Rich had been a big supporter and friend of Barak and Israel, which was why Barak asked. Clnton never had a personal direct connection to Marc Rich.

    Marc Rich's chief american advocate, ironically, was his divorced EX-Wife -- who apparently continued to be a devoted friend. Clinton knew her because she was an active political fund raiser and supporter of both Clinton and the Democratic Party.

    No matter the reasons, it was an unneccesarily damaging thing politically, one that made easy talk radio fodder for weeks just when junior was trying to besmirch his predeccessor so that he would look like an "honorable" whiff of fresh air.

    Rich was not days away from entering a jail cell, he was not a former member of the Clinton administration, he was not someone in a position to reveal incriminating information about the President and VP.

    The two events are incredibly unalike.
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/08/2007 at 07:14 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Marc Rich's chief american advocate, ironically, was his divorced EX-Wife -- who apparently continued to be a devoted friend. Clinton knew her because she was an active polical fund raiser and supporter of both Clinton and the Democratic Party.
    That's not irony. THIS is:

    During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. ...In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    That's not irony. THIS is:

    During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. ...In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.


    yes, that can be Marked as one especially Rich irony !!
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/08/2007 at 07:18 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Here is an interesting question: if by some miracle congress were ever able to gain access to the evidence and get the real story - the one Libby lied about to hide the truth, hence the obstruction of justice conviction - and found that Bush and Cheney were directly involved, could this commutation end up being considered a criminal act as well?
    What lies specifically are you talking about? As I understand it, Libby directly contradicted testimony of other witnesses. E.g., Judith Miller said one thing, and Libby said another. In this case, Fitzgerald concluded that Libby was lying and Miller's story was accurate. Are there lies for which he was charged with perjury or obstruction where we don't know the truth?
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    What lies specifically are you talking about? As I understand it, Libby directly contradicted testimony of other witnesses. E.g., Judith Miller said one thing, and Libby said another. In this case, Fitzgerald concluded that Libby was lying and Miller's story was accurate. Are there lies for which he was charged with perjury or obstruction where we don't know the truth?
    It is my understanding the Fitzgerald never issued a report and as such never concluded whether he felt there may be unknown truths beyond Libby, Miller, Armitage, etc.

    That aside, the question is a hypothetical one - if there was more learned and the President was implicated could the commutation itself be considered a crime?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It is my understanding the Fitzgerald never issued a report and as such never concluded whether he felt there may be unknown truths beyond Libby, Miller, Armitage, etc.
    I think you're reacting to the Media Matters spin on Fitzgerald's press conference regarding the obstruction charge, and perhaps also to one of cell's posts. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK, $Fitzgerald$ $didn$'$t$ $say$ $or$ $imply$ $that$ $there$ $might$ $be$ $any$ $unknown$ $truths$ $beyond$ $Libby$'$s$ $mindset$.

    That aside, the question is a hypothetical one - if there was more learned and the President was implicated could the commutation itself be considered a crime?
    Going along with the hypothetical... Even if the President actively planned and committed a crime, and worked with Libby to cover it up, and Libby's testimony was critical to an investigation of the President, the President still has the Constitutional power to pardon. I don't see how the pardon would become a criminal act in itself. And if a law were passed that made a Presidential pardon illegal under certain circumstances, I believe that law would be unconstitutional.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I think you're reacting to the Media Matters spin on Fitzgerald's press conference regarding the obstruction charge, and perhaps also to one of cell's posts. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK, $Fitzgerald$ $didn$'$t$ $say$ $or$ $imply$ $that$ $there$ $might$ $be$ $any$ $unknown$ $truths$ $beyond$ $Libby$'$s$ $mindset$.

    Going along with the hypothetical... Even if the President actively planned and committed a crime, and worked with Libby to cover it up, and Libby's testimony was critical to an investigation of the President, the President still has the Constitutional power to pardon. I don't see how the pardon would become a criminal act in itself. And if a law were passed that made a Presidential pardon illegal under certain circumstances, I believe that law would be unconstitutional.

    Scooter was pursued as agressively as he was because he lied numerous times -- lies that he left unretracted in subsequent interviews.

    Fitzgerald's EXTRAORDINARILY aggressive pursuit of testimony from reporters that directly contradicted Libby's, is proof that he was very reluctant to bring him to trial without multiple examples of deliberate perjury.

    Libby had expected that he could use reporters for his untruthful alibis because traditionally reporters would never testify -- nor would prosecutors normally compel them to. When Judith Miller, Tim Russert, and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine finally consented under coercion to testify under oath, Scooter was sunk.

    point 2:

    What junior did in commuting the sentence of a potential witness against himself was what Madison foresaw as a serious event deserving of impeachment:

    "...George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded: “[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….”


    I confess to some surprise that they had the legal smarts to understand that commuting Libby's sentence rather than immediately pardoning him would shelter him from being compelled to answer questions under oath about these events -- this is certainly more clever than most of what junior does.
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/09/2007 at 01:20 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #37  
    I believe the others did not take the stand to verify the story. Also, she was not covert when the information was released.

    As for my post, it was to lighten the conversation up - I laughed while doing it. Shame others took it so seriously.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    What lies specifically are you talking about? As I understand it, Libby directly contradicted testimony of other witnesses. E.g., Judith Miller said one thing, and Libby said another. In this case, Fitzgerald concluded that Libby was lying and Miller's story was accurate. Are there lies for which he was charged with perjury or obstruction where we don't know the truth?
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    point 2:

    What junior did in commuting the sentence of a potential witness against himself was what Madison foresaw as a serious event deserving of impeachment:

    "...George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded: “[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….”
    Many people argue that a President should be impeachable for abuse of power or betraying the public's trust - far short of criminality.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Many people argue that a President should be impeachable for abuse of power or betraying the public's trust - far short of criminality.
    I emphatically agree.

    For instance for a long time I have believed that our troops could never be extricated in an intelligent way from the iraqi quagmire as long as junior was unimpeached and unextricated from the WH.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #40  
    This gets right to the heart of what I was asking in my hypothetical question. And you're right...it was very clever to commute vs. pardon.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions