I'm relieved that you can laugh. I was getting worried about your health since you seem so bitter and angry. I was thinking about calling you bittertiger. Keep in mind I'm not around here as much as I once was. I don't know the last time you've been here but I really haven't been around that much the last 6 months or so. I am today on a peak day with the news.:thumb:
The Independent Special Prosecutor legislation expired in 2000. Congress did not renew it--because of the expensive failure of the Ken Lay Whitewater witch-hunt for Democrats . . . and the republicans, well they just didn't want any independent prosecutors around for the Bush administration. With no act to enable the appointment of an independent prosecutor, there was no choice but to use a Justice Department prosecutor. It's just never going to result in an aggressive prosecution of the White House like the Watergate or Whitewater prosecutors were able to do. Fitzgerald was a tool of the executive branch and he did what he was told.
Talk about someone being partisan these days. How did they know Bush would be in office when that law expired at the end of 1999?:hihi:
You most certainly took what I said out of context. Sourdough said that because Armitage wasn't indicted that told him everything he needed to know. I asked why Clinton's acquital didn't tell him everything he needed to know. I was just pointing out the hypocricy. And I still say if you can't defend your guy based on his own merits then you have no case. Note, I am not defending anything Bill Clinton ever did or bashing anything Bush did. Read what you posted. Anything members of our sitting President's administration does or does not do roles up to the man. I always hold the President responsible for what happens on his watch. I was asking a question on why people were using Clinton's actions to defend Bush. Why not mention all the rotten things other President's have done. After 7 plus years Republicans can still not get over Bill Clinton. Its just sad.
Yea, some moderate. Moderate in views but definitely not a moderate when it comes to criticism. The truth hurts, it cracks me up just how much chaos a few liberals or liberal minded people can cause in these forums. I guess that is no surprise when you look at how 12 terrorists can bring a country to a complete stand still
I never defended Jefferson. I personally think he is sleeze. My question was why you hamper on Democrats wrongdoings, but don't concern yourselves with those of Republicans? I never posted anything about Mark Foley except to say that if what was being said at the time were true then he is a sick dude. Clinton was acquitted. Libby was found guilty. Do see the distinction? Oh no. Big bad LSUsupafan is at it again censoring everyone's opinions. If I don't support liberal positions what makes me a liberal?
You certainly haven't read enough of my posts these last few months. Do a search or ask someone here about my posts. You are assuming again, things are quite different from the way things use to be. If you are just going to ignore my criticisms of republicans in my posts then I will ignore you. As bad as this administration is I'll take it over a liberal anyday. I have said plenty of times in this stupid forum that I hate politics of today. There is plenty of information around to prove otherwise, I criticize both sides but I do criticize the left more than the right. I'm still waiting for you and red to criticize the left after 4 years at this forum. That makes both of you liberals in my view. Its just amazing how much havoc you two reak in this forum going after everyone else especially me in your case. This is stupid and childish and I'm done here. Back to something fun like talking, playing sports or with my kids. Have a good day!:grin:
It is perfectly natural for folks on either side of the fence to feel uncomfortable with presidential pardons. That begs the real question: Why is such power vested with the President? What was the original intent in such a Constitutional construct? Perhaps this interests me more as I'm studying for the bar, but it does seem a bit out of line with most prescribed powers inherent in our Constitution, which is about as bulletproof of a governmental instruction as has been devised. So set aside partisan concerns that in the end will not change, and consider the fundamental question: "Why is this allowable, and is the harm offset by the potential benefit?"
You said probably but most assuredly failed to qualify that statement previously. My conclusion about your statement was erroneous because you left it hanging out there. And no I don't think it is more serious than the president's brothers-in-law getting paid 1/2 million dollars for three pardons. And while we are on the subject of serious, the very crime Scooter was convicted of, Clinton was as well. I find that infinitely more embarrassing. Still waiting on the proof of that. Maybe I will win the publisher's clearinghouse sweepstakes first. Yeah, I hear they hang out on grassy knolls just waiting to be assigned to a juicy cover up. Do you need to check your loop? You just affirmed what I said. I can pull up thread after thread of you defending Clinton. It's all you ever do, when you are not bashing Bush. Ok, I will give you that. No offense Sourdough.
Ummmm, you really need to check your loop. I didn't say that. This is what I said: Sounds eerily familiar... No, it was one of the most embarrassing times of my life as an American. I never dreamed the office would be demeaned in such a fashion. Though it is nice I will be able to tell my grandkids where I was when the second president in the history of the country got impeached.
