Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The because someone else has done it already its OK defence

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Semperfortis thank you for the above post what I don't understand is why it took this thread for the facts you put forward to be presented. Since Bush has the authority to squash sentences and pardon people there shouldn't be an need for the because someone else has done it argument.




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11 Since Bush has the authority to squash sentences and pardon people there shouldn't be an need for the because someone else has done it argument.


Exactly, therefore the only reason that precedent emerges is because the ethics of the action don't stand up to scrutiny. Grade-school rationalisation ends up being the legitimising factor...so legal or not, it obviously doesn't pass the smell test.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
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..


And just because you think it was right, it does not make it right.

I can think of plenty of scenarios that could play out on a day to day basis, that are perfectly legal, but still completely wrong. I do not equate "legal" to "right". Just as I don't equate "illegal" to being "wrong". For the most part, these terms are synonymous. But there are the exceptions, and I believe this to be one of them.


Originally posted by semperfortis
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..


So in the past, when white slave owners could treat their black slaves in any way that I'm not even going to attempt to describe, that was right? At the time it was legal, so it was right?

No, it wasn't. The law can be a shield for some, just as it can be a sword for others. It works both ways, and I guess depending on what side of the fence we sit, it determines whether we are carrying a sword, or a shield.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

And just because you think it was right, it does not make it right.


Therein lies the difference in me and you..

I DON'T think it was right...

Or wrong...

I think, no I know it is the LAW, it is his RIGHT under the Constitution of the United States...

The difference is that I don't have the presumption to THINK that I am above the Constitution and that MY opinion is all that matters...

I accept that the Constitution is the Governing document and that his actions are in line with that document. I accept that these actions have been tested by the Supreme Court and have been upheld..

I DO NOT ever assume to place my opinion above that of the Supreme Court of the land simply because of some feelings I have against anyone...

In essence, I am NOT emotional about the issue, as so many are apparently..

I never complained when Bubba pardoned, not commuted, PARDONED his brother in law under VERY shaking circumstances..

WHY???

Because it was his RIGHT to do so...


Semper



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Semp, dude, why are you suddenly coming across as if you feel the need to preach this to us? Like I said, whether it was his "right" or not, it doesn't make it right. I do have an opinion, and I am within my own "right" to have one. I'm not running from thread to thread bashing the man, or his motifs behind the move. However, I do disagree with it. Your personal stance here to have no opinion on it, merely because it was within his own right, well.. I just don't get it.

To me, it comes across as an attempt to divert the attention of any morals or ethics, and continue to point the finger at the American constitution.

This is a document that was written by man. Man is fallible. Thus, simple logic dictates that fallibility is possible within our own laws.

"Rights" do not make it right. I have an opinion, and I am entitled to it. But I am not guilty of trying to preach my opinion onto everyone else. I have a view on the subject, and I strongly believe it. Others have theirs, and I respect it completely.

Knowing that someone disagrees with me, I can still sleep quite fine at night.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Of course you have a right to criticize my friend...

You of all people know how I feel about that.

The problem is in "examples" and "history."

The crucifixion of President Bush began the moment the liberals lost the Presidential Election in 00, it has continued to this day. Any and every action he has taken has been vilified regardless of the actions of any of his predecessors.

That hypocrisy has never been more evident than here and now with this minor issue that is being blown up by those that have been vocal in the destruction of this man as a President and even as a person.

We, Conservatives, bring up precedent to attempt to illustrate to you liberals the blatant hypocrisy being espoused here. Yet as always it falls on deaf ears, as perhaps the most prevalent of liberal qualities is the refusal to assess self.

You liberals will of course dismiss and sidestep all of Clinton's VERY sinister pardons and in full regalia judge yourselves free to cast dispersions on this one action. All without one shred of proof other than an overactive imagination.

The man did nothing more than his job. He followed in the footsteps of ALL previous holders of the office and dispensed true justice. I am not personally happy about the immigration issue, but this one act was truly courageous and exactly in good time.

As usual the liberals hate anything that stands for courage and honor and individual action, so it is expected that liberals will vilify this action. Liberals can't understand it, so it must be evil. If they can't prove it is, they have no problem making something up about it.

So no one here is "preaching" Chiss, my friend, just trying to give as good a discussion as I get. It is amusing that so MANY can make up arguments and create ideas that are against President Bush and they get no "guff" at all, those few who retain the courage to defend correct actions, must be forced to "take our lickings" and be vilified ourselves.

So, I support your right to your opinion, do you support mine?

Semper



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
...We, Conservatives...


I'm a conservative and I think he ought to go.


...and I'm not the only one.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
A rose by any other name..

Remains a rose..

Also

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Semper



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
A rose by any other name..

Remains a rose..

Also

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Semper


I think we agree, but I'm willing to bet for different reasons.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You liberals will of course dismiss and sidestep all of Clinton's VERY sinister pardons and in full regalia judge yourselves free to cast dispersions on this one action. All without one shred of proof other than an overactive imagination.


I will quote this portion to make my point, but I can't help but notice the amount of times you referred to "You Liberals". It's possible that you speak generally here, but I am under the strong impression that most of that post was directed at me. So, I must acknowledge to you my friend that I carry no political affiliation. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, and hell, I'm not even American. But I believe you know that already. I'm not a Liberal, I'm not a Conservative. I just go with what I believe to be correct for our society, at that given time. If I feel a Liberal is the right choice this time around, so be it. Next time, it might be a different story.

So this "You Liberals" is something that is misguided. I do not speak against Bush because of my political affiliation. I speak against him because I simply disagree. A disagreement with the man does not equate to Liberalism.


Originally posted by semperfortis
The man did nothing more than his job.


I believe you are hiding behind the constitution here, using it as a shield to defend these actions. Entitled to, and I do believe it is it's purpose at times. But just because it makes it legal, does not make it the right thing to do.

Legal and right can be two different things.


Originally posted by semperfortis
As usual the liberals hate anything that stands for courage and honor and individual action, so it is expected that liberals will vilify this action. Liberals can't understand it, so it must be evil. If they can't prove it is, they have no problem making something up about it.


Generalizations that serve no purpose. Do not buy into the game that so many others do. A positive discussion can never prevail when these useless generalizations are being thrown around. Just my opinion though.


Originally posted by semperfortis
So, I support your right to your opinion, do you support mine?


I sincerely hope I've never infringed on the rights of any individual to have an opinion. I will always respect the opinion of an individual, but I shall not always agree with it. You look at a man and see many positives. I look at the same man and see something else. Matter of perspective really, nothing more. Your opinion is just as valid and just as "correct" as mine, and I would never say otherwise. I may voice my opinion without going out of my way to patronize your own. But I would hope that is not misconstrued as a lack of respect for your stance.

Either way, it appears that the naysayers are holding the sword, while the Bush supporters are carrying the shield.

When a Democrat takes the office and reminds us all that they can be miserable at the job as well, maybe the tables will turn.

Only time will tell.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by chissler]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well said Chissler, very well said...

You are always wonderful to debate and I never fail to walk away without something to ponder...

Semper



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
It's so much fun to be a moderate. I can see both sides of this debate for lack of a better phrase between Chissler and Semper.

Guess what guys in my humble opinion which I admit doesn't count for much you're both correct.

I seriously question the ethics behind the pardon of Libby and I also seriously question Clinton's ethics regarding his pardons. I believe both should have been counseled to take a second look at their actions. However, as we all know they didn't.

They were both legally entitled to take the actions they took. As President they have/had the right to issue pardons to who ever they deem worthy. Both of them did so. Bush may very well issue more pardons and if so he has the legal right to do so.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You are always wonderful to debate and I never fail to walk away without something to ponder...


Ditto.

It's nice to know that I don't have to "sugarcoat" everything, and basically say what I want to say, without the fear of deeply offending someone.


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
I seriously question the ethics behind the pardon of Libby and I also seriously question Clinton's ethics regarding his pardons. I believe both should have been counseled to take a second look at their actions. However, as we all know they didn't.


Every day is it's own day. What past President's did, in my opinion, is "almost" irrelevant. We lived in a different society during Clinton's administration, and it can be said that he may have been able to operate under a different set of moral and ethical obligations. Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11, very different. Bush did not ask to be the President of the United States during 9/11, or Post-9/11. But he was, and there is nothing any of us can do about it. And like it or not, he is faced with higher standards. The microscope that was pointed at Clinton, and President's that came before him, it is much bigger this go around. Simply because of September 11th.

So to point the finger at Clinton and say, "Well, he did it!", that doesn't cut it for me. If this is going to be validated, it needs to be validated on it's own two feet. Not on the actions of past Presidents, and not hiding under the Constitution. There are moral and ethical implications here that come into play, and the Constitution does not excuse it.

I won't go dramatic and say it was a dark day blah blah blah, but it did leave a bitter taste in the back of my mouth. Legal, indeed. Right? Far from it.


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
They were both legally entitled to take the actions they took. As President they have/had the right to issue pardons to who ever they deem worthy. Both of them did so. Bush may very well issue more pardons and if so he has the legal right to do so.


But wouldn't it of been nice to see him say, "You know what? I could pardon 'em, and it would be completely legal. But, it's not the right thing to do. Maybe, just maybe, I'll actually do whats right for this country, rather than doing what the law entitles me to."

A man can dream.

...Right?




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Chissler, you mistake me if you think that I believe that because one did it it's okay. No, I'm merely pointing out that both actions were legal. Also I must disagree that Bush may be operating under different moral and ethical obligations; right is right irregardless of time frames.

I find the entire Washington DC crowd for the most part to be devoid of morals and standards for the most part. I'm ready for a serious change and I don't much care whether it is a Republican or Democrat or a viable third party. I'm sick of business as usual.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Also I must disagree that Bush may be operating under different moral and ethical obligations; right is right irregardless of time frames.


Society is ever changing. How can you say that a President today is operating under the same moral and ethical guidelines as say, someone thirty or forty years ago? With the technology that we have at our finger tips, the President is under more scrutiny than ever. With this scrutiny comes tighter morals and ethics.

In the past, people were not inundated with government, policies, politics, Presidents, etc. With television, radio, internet, etc., is it realistic to think that almost everyone in the Western world could recognize George Bush's name, face, and voice. Eighty years ago, do you think that almost everyone in the Western world would of been able to recognize the name, face, and voice of the President of the United States?

No, they couldn't.

They have changed, we have changed, society has changed. With all of that, the rules have changed. President's may have been able to operate under the law in the past, and have nobody question it. Today, every move made by the man is scrutinized on every means of communication. People who would not have give a damn in the past, they have an opinion today. With more opinions, comes more morals and ethics. Thus, the moral and ethical expectations of this position has increased enormously.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
True enough Chissler society and times are changing daily; however, one thing hasn't changed; our leadership is still supposed to put the needs of us above their needs and be above reproach.

Bush and Clinton both failed in that sense. Both used pardons in what I believe is ethically questionable. You can say oh but Clinton was so long ago from til the cows come home. You can also say Clinton's actions aren't relevant today. I have to say wrong answer; Hiliary is running for president therefore her husbands actions while he was president are very much relevant. Do you not think he'll have influence on her? Of course, he will. Therefore it is indeed in our best interest to look at what he did while in office because I'm pretty darn sure she knew and likely advised him while he was.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Oh I believe his actions to be completely relevant. But not in an attempt to excuse the actions of a current President.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Oh I believe his actions to be completely relevant. But not in an attempt to excuse the actions of a current President.


Okay I was mistaken in your belief that his actions were irrelevant. I'm not trying to say because one did it it's just fine and dandy. No indeed, I don't like what either one did. I think you and I agree that just because an action is legal doesn't mean it's right. However, blasting Bush for doing something that is legal isn't going to accomplish anything. What we need to do is elect leaders that think for themselves and don't practice cronyism. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change.






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join