Right back at ya tough guy. Love the internet bravado. Almost as comical as your thought processes.:thumb:
Assuming that you agree with the concept and reason for pardons, Hamilton makes the argument as to why the President in Federalist 74 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s20.html). The argument boils down to the differences between individuals and committees. An individual is assumed to personally take the responsibility more seriously and be more sensitive to appearances. In addition in cases where expediency is required, there really is no contest. For the most part I agree with this, but I think this is the one example where the Founders put too much faith in the honor and integrity of single man. I think there is potential for too much of a conflict of interest when pardoning current and former goverment officials for crimes committed while in office. Ideally, there should be an alternative process for seeking pardons for these individuals that could be designed to be as non-partisan as possible. The only exception I might/probably would make would be for Presidents (e.g. Ford pardoning Nixon) because of their import and potential impact on a current presidency. Now I said ideally this is what I would do, but I do not want to see a constitutional amendment for it. I do not think the effort required by the Congress and state legislatures would be worth it for the generally few bad pardons (although there may be a ****load with this admin) during lame duck periods.
Anybody that criticises George Bush is a granola-eating, tree-hugging, whale-saving, pinko commie hippie liberal baby-killer from California that hates America and lets the Godless fags get married.
Your criticisms of Bush don't bother me. It's your obsessive need to jump into any thread that even hints at anything positive about this administration that bugs me.
Defending Clinton, sure. Apologizing for him, no. I think Bill Clinton did a good job as president and he has nothing to apologize for except for being a charming but irresponsible lecher. And I do not defend him on that issue. Clearly, you are not paying attention. To use your phrase, "check the loop". There are damn few topics that I don't have an opinion on. Illicit is a synonym for illegal. The president was prosecuted. Rewriting history, Sourdough? :wink: Clinton was acquitted, Libby was convicted. Too young to remember Richard Nixon, eh?
It's a political discussion forum, my man. I'm afraid I don't consider a thread titled "Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence" as a thread where one Red cannot comment on Bush. And I certainly don't consider the commutation to be something positive. I commended Bush on establishing the largest marine sanctuary in the world. I commended Bush for fighting a smart war in Afghanistan. That's about all the positive there is, amigo.
You are absolutely right. You don't apologize for his many mistakes. You just ignore them. They have been listed repeatedly. You chose the second definition for obvious reasons. What I intended is clear and sounds as if it was written about our president. Adj.1.illicit - contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention; "an illicit association with his secretary"licit - sanctioned by custom or morality especially sexual morality; "a wife's licit love" 2.illicit - contrary to or forbidden by law; "an illegitimate seizure of power"; "illicit trade"; "an outlaw strike"; "unlawful measures" Purposely ignoring the fact that he was impeached by the House on those very charges and acquitted on strict party lines in the Senate. Hardly a typical day in court. You know damn well he did those things and walked because the democrats would not allow him to fall for his blatant disregard. You insult yourself when you feign innocence on this subject. Not too young, but too young for it to effect me or the everyday person you meet on the street. Unless they all belong to AARP...:lol:
No one is infallible, but I think Clinton's virtues outweigh his mistakes. Bush's do not. Pick your dictionary. It is the first definition on dictionary.com il·lic·it –adjective 1. not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful. 2. disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons. Your use was unclear but I assumed you meant illegal. The second definition doesn't totally apply either. The affair was morally disapproved of, but not unpermitted. Not too strict. Ten republicans voted with the Democrats for acquittal--55 to 45. A lame attempt to deny the obvious. Clinton was acquitted and Libby was convicted. Period. There is always a spin you can put on it, but it doesn't make Libby's legal conviction by a jury in front of a judge disappear.
