Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The because someone else has done it already its OK defence

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The president didn't misuse his power. He exercised it, just as Clinton did and every president before him.

Is that a really good reason to use his executive powers in an unsavoury manner?


Are Canadian poitics so boring that Canadians have to spend time obsessing about cases as trivial as this one?

You shouldn't be surprised that what goes on in Washington often has ramifications towards other places. Especially with our little Eagle Scout Prime Minister that wants to be just like Bush when he grows up. Also, I can't say as providing a reasonable response to a question on this forum could be called 'obsessing'. Perhaps you's like ATS to censor responses that come from other countries 'cuz it just ain't American?

Democrats, I can understand. For seven years, they've been in a living hell. Every time the president poots, it's cause for impeachment.

Democrats hate president's with backbone.


You don't see how this statement proves both the OP's and my points? Sometime you've gotta stop playing the blame-game and...I donno...maybe re-build New Orleans? Give everybody health care?

[edit on 9-7-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I can't imagine why this case is so important to Americans, much less Canadians.

You can comment till the cows come home for all I care, but I still can't figure out why you or any person outside the US would bother to even lift a finger to comment on this sideshow.

New Orleans is not public property. It is owned by I don't know how many individuals and corporations.

Right now, there are so many scams going on down there that I hate to see any federal money wasted on it.

The free market will rebuild New Orleans in the same way that it was built in the first place.

By the way, I lived in New Orleans for 22 years. I know more about that town I would even care to share, so no one really needs to tell me about New Orleans.

Forgive me. What was this about the blame game?

Did I blame anyone for anything?

[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I can't imagine why this case is so important to Americans, much less Canadians.

*snip*

Did I blame anyone for anything?

[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]


Blame is a strong word but when a non-American makes a post about something you don't like you pull this out:


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


Are Canadian poitics so boring that Canadians have to spend time obsessing about cases as trivial as this one?



Guess what Grady, we aren't uneducated and we actually know what's going on in the world.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I can't imagine why this case is so important to Americans, much less Canadians.


I don't expect the "Canadian troops" to flock here, but as a Canadian, I feel obligated to chime in here.

"Much less Canadians" ?

Only Americans can have a viable opinion on their own administration? I'm sorry Grady, but your administration seems to affect our country more than our own. So yeah, "We Canadians" might have an opinion or two. We didn't vote, but we can still have an opinion. Because unlike Americans who did have the vote, and are impacted, we didn't have a say in the matter.

We are impacted, we don't have a voice in the matter, and now we are not to have an opinion?

Too bad, so sad. I'm sure you have an opinion on something that is not American, so I find your stance to be slightly hypocritical.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You can comment till the cows come home for all I care, but I still can't figure out why you or any person outside the US would bother to even lift a finger to comment on this sideshow.


I'm not sure if I find that confusing, or just downright patronizing. Yes, some of us like to stay up on politics of a country, other than our own. Again, I'm not sure if this is confusion on my part, or should your stance really be coming across as arrogant as it is?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
WHY is it all of a sudden an issue? I can answer that, because you all hate the man..


You all ?
By that kind of thinking I could say that all cops are corrupt without question.


The fact that he has pardoned and commuted FAR less than MOST sitting presidents is a VALID point to be brought up when you are lynching the man for doing EXACTLY what is considered common practice in the White House... and doing FAR FAR less of it...


So if something done often it is OK ?
I am not arguing against Bush right to pardon instead I am pointing out that when people defend Bush decision they use an flawed argument.

Clearly if an decision cant be defended on its merits there is something wrong. Semper if your so sure that people coming out against Bush decision on the basis of hatred then you should be able to defend the decision based on its merit.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The president didn't misuse his power.


How did you come by this special knowledge?

Would it not be 'misuse' if it was done to reward the continuing cooperation of a convicted felon who at one point EXPLICITLY implicated the Vice President in wrongdoing?



Play the Clinton game all you want.

This situation is VERY different.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Play the Clinton game all you want.

This situation is VERY different.


I have never played the Clinton game.

The president exercised his Constitutional powers.

It's a simple as that.

You may read the link I provided in an earlier post.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpottWhat was this about the blame game? Did I blame anyone for anything?


What I refer to as 'the blame game' is the whole dialectic that proposes anything that this leader does is ok as long as it doesn't exceed the excesses of the last one. Note that I didn't use names, cuz it's a general malaise over the whole system...Canadian as well.

I cited Carlin earlier..."if two wrongs don't make a right...do three?" I'll add that the only President that didn't blame the administration before his was George Washington.

The point is that using precedent to excuse base behaviour has to end sometime or it becomes the order of the day. The question, Grady, is not 'is the President entitled to use his powers of pardon?'. The question is do you like the way his is exercising those powers?. If so, fine...it's a democracy. If not...well, it's still a democracy. But that's a stand-alone question.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
In this case, I don't care if Libby rots in jail or stays home with his family.

In the case of presidential pardons in general, I have better things to worry about.

I didn't worry about Clinton's pardons, or even Ford's pardon, so I'm not going to waste my precious psychic energy worrying about Bush's or anyone's who follows him.

No one really deserves a pardon, but throughout the US, they are handed out on probably a daily basis, because that's the kind of people we are. We believe that good people make mistakes and that bad people can be persuaded to change in a hurry.

All the cases that went before don't really apply to the Libby case, but taken as a whole, they do typify a philosophy of forgiveness that's part of who we are.

I know you don't like historical references, but here's one of my favorite stories regarding pardons.


Lead Belly's boastful spirit and penchant for the occasional skirmish sometimes led him into trouble with the law, and in January 1918 he was thrown into a Dallas, Texas prison for the second time, this time after killing one of his relatives, Will Stafford, in a fight. It is said that he was released two years into his 35 year sentence after writing a song appealing to Governor Pat Morris Neff for his freedom. Lead Belly had swayed Governor Neff by appealing to his strong religious values. That, in combination with good behavior (including entertaining by playing for the guards and fellow prisoners), was Ledbetter's ticket out of jail.

In 1930, Lead Belly was back in prison, this time in Louisiana for attempted homicide. It was there, three years later, that he was "discovered" by musicologists John and Alan Lomax, who were enchanted by his talent, passion and singularity as a performer, and recorded hundreds of his songs on portable recording equipment for the Library of Congress. The following year Lead Belly was once again pardoned, this time after a petition for his early release was taken to Louisiana Governor O.K. Allen by the Lomaxes. The petition was on the other side of a recording of one of his most popular songs, "Goodnight Irene". But records show he was released due to good behavior, and mention nothing of the song.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Getting back to the original question, I have seen it used many times on ATS, and have denounced it regularly. Usually I use the form of "Don't use bad behavior to justify other bad behavior".

I see it used often as a defense when bad behavior by some foreign country is pointed out. Chavez, for instance, will shut down a TV station, and instead of discussing that, people will point to free speech zones in the US.

Imo, these people do it as a way of diverting the topic because there is no defense for Chavez' actions, a man they admire. There is also an element of hate for and envy of the US present in some of the responses.

Anyway, it drives me crazy because it is so transparent. But it is the last refuge used by those with no other argument.

Back to Marc Rich: his wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton library, $10,000 to his legal defense fund, and $70,000 to Hillary's campaign fund. Pardon's ain't cheap, you know.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by loam
Play the Clinton game all you want.

This situation is VERY different.


I have never played the Clinton game.


Quite right.


(I really intended my last two comments for the broader audience.)

You and I actually agree on this point. Clinton's use of the power (or that of any president, for that matter) does not amplify or reduce the inherent right of the President to use it...except in one case...

I know you have read my other posts on this subject. (just click on the links in my signature
)

Why wont you answer the question I posed earlier?




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Grady,
Interesting point about Leadbelly. I'll just say that the public would, I think, feel a whole lot less that the will of the courts was thwarted if Scooter did some time first...just so's he knows he was bad. Just like Leadbelly did.


Originally posted by jsobecky Back to Marc Rich: his wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton library, $10,000 to his legal defense fund, and $70,000 to Hillary's campaign fund. Pardon's ain't cheap, you know.


And like I mentioned before...for some cheap yucks, see who Rich's lawyer was. That kinda rounds out the whole process.

I have no problem with mercy. But I don't like cronyism disguised as such.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
How did you come by this special knowledge?


I have no special knowledge.

It's all explained right here:

usgovinfo.about.com...

[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Clearly if an decision cant be defended on its merits there is something wrong. Semper if your so sure that people coming out against Bush decision on the basis of hatred then you should be able to defend the decision based on its merit.



Remarkably easy...

It is his right...

He has the authority...

He has the legality...

The thing to remember is that just because YOU think it was wrong, does not in any way make it wrong. That is just your opinion..

YOU may think it is wrong that I smoke, but currently I have the legal ability to do so... So the fact that YOU may think it wrong, does not make it so..

YOU have every right to criticize any actions that YOU see fit to. But that is all it is, you being critical. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, for the FACTS are that he has EVERY right to do what he did and MANY of us support it.

The FACT that we support it also does not make it right any more than your opposition makes it wrong, what makes it RIGHT is the Constitution and the decisions by the Supreme Court that have upheld his authority to do what he did...

See? Simple..

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have no special knowledge.

It's all explained right here:

usgovinfo.about.com...


Not "all"... Read my links and tell me if you agree.

(Sorry about the "special" knowledge thing... That was unfair.
)



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Read my links and tell me if you agree.


I read one of your links and I don't agree that the president should be impeached. Enough evidence might arise eventually to persuade me, but I'm not just dying to see the president impeached as so many are.

My guess is that the president will not be impeached and if he is impeached he will not be removed from office and that by the year 2010, no one will be able to pick Valerie Plame or "Scooter" Libby out of a line up.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
There is no precedent for what Bush is doing.
He pardons Libby, or others in his immediate cabinet and IT IS NOT the same as past presidents who have the power to pardon some serious criminals out there but were outside of their inner circle.


Agreed. There is no precedent for what the president has done in this case. I must confess I was actually shocked when I heard the news that Libby's sentence was commuted. What cojones, my goodness gracious.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Guess what Grady, we aren't uneducated and we actually know what's going on in the world.


When did say anything regarding those points?

[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I read one of your links and I don't agree that the president should be impeached. Enough evidence might arise eventually to persuade me, but I'm not just dying to see the president impeached as so many are.


Fair enough.

I'm not dying to see this either, but I think it needs to happen. I think it will say much about who we are as a nation.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My guess is that the president will not be impeached


I think the chances appears to be increasing...


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
and if he is impeached he will not be removed from office


I tend to agree. But, that would depend on what was determined at the impeachment stage.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
and that by the year 2010, no one will be able to pick Valerie Plame or "Scooter" Libby out of a line up.


Perhaps. But some will remember the deeds as an instruction manual on how to successfully abuse power...



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
What cojones, my goodness gracious.
And Cojonudo too


Translation: Ballsey.






new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join