posted on July 5, 2007 02:04:28 PM new
mingotree
posted on July 4, 2007 08:46:46 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""A president can and has won the election without the popular vote.""
Oh, I think America is unhappily aware of that circumstance and so am I.
However, the "popular vote" and "popularity contest" are two DIFFERENT phrases, two different things, you can't argue one against the other.
""" don't doubt it, and why doesn't that surprise me. Be glad you don't live in Russia. Siberia gets awfully cold. ""
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Is bushit going to send dissenters to Siberian camps now??? It would be just like him!
etexbill
posted on July 5, 2007 09:25:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no idea what I am talking about. I don't doubt that either.
Read the sentence again slowly. Was Bush in it? No, the sentence was about what probably would happen to you if you lived in Russia. Be glad you are able to bad mouth your politicians. """
extex, do you know what a question mark is? It's the little squiggle with the dot under it as in "Is bushit going to send dissenters to Siberian camps now???""
That one had 3 question marks that you missed. It was a question, do you know what that means? I ASKED if that was what your statement meant , I didn't SAY that was what it meant....
AND, what has your statement about Siberia got to do with anything ? I think everyone by now knows we have free speech...so?
etexbill
posted on July 5, 2007 09:28:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However, the "popular vote" and "popularity contest" are two DIFFERENT phrases, two different things, you can't argue one against the other"
So you say, that's hilarious."""
Yes, that's what I say...they are two different things...just beecause they have the same word in them does not mean they're the same...e.g.a kangaroo court does NOT involve kangaroos.
posted on July 5, 2007 03:51:08 PM new
etexbill
posted on July 5, 2007 02:20:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My gawd! Aren't ANY of you educated at all?????"
OMG. Well look who's throwing education around.
There are courses for reading comprehension problems, oh learned one who looks at etexbill and reads extex. Take one. """
LOL! Yup! The neocons are the BEST at avoiding the issue! Squirm, worm, twist, twirl....you're good and I don't REALLY care about whether I get your name right or not....I got everything else right and your answer proves you know it
posted on July 5, 2007 06:30:39 PM new
things to consider...
1) A pardon was NOT granted because Scooter can still testify and incriminate himself for the other crimes he committed when he attempted to cover them up... also another witness or evidence can provide Scooter a direct route to jail if he was given a full pardon. I am sure Scooter requested this when he bargained he way out.
2) This strategy may very well backfire on him because we get closer and closer to an impeachment. If a President gets impeached and removed from office, he cannot pardon a twig if he wanted to.
3) The commute could be found in direct conflict of the Constitution since it was most likely done as part of a bargaining chip between the Bush/Cheney Administration to avoid and obstruct justice against their own illegal actions.
4) Don't be surprised at seeing Scooter again in front of Congress testifying, and don't be surprised to learn more about how much criminal activity went on in the White House already up to the VP and President.
5) Bush cannot pardon himself, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez, or anyone else who can be impeached. His powers end there.
6) All of the major Republican candidates stepped up to the plate and gave their stance on this decision, and America has taken note of how these crooks want to control this country. Their views are in direct conflict with the majority of Americans and how they view this.
7) Linduh is a dumb@ss... thought I would check if you were still paying attention. LOL!!!
posted on July 5, 2007 07:16:28 PM new
I heard something interesting tonight from a defense attorney on a news program. He said the reasons Bush gave for commuting Libby's sentence--suffering of his family, his public service---are not even allowed to be considered by Federal judges. They are constrained by federal laws from using these extenuating circumstances when deciding a sentence. There are thousands of federal felons who had the same mitigating circumstances, but are serving time.
Another interesting thing: Federal records show conviction in federal court on obstruction of justice gets you prison sentence 3 out of 4 times. The average sentence is 5 years for obstruction of justice and 21 months for perjury.
President Bush had every right to commute Libby's sentence, but the reasons he gave are bogus.
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 5, 2007 07:24 PM ]
Classic, without a link, some quotes can be misinterpreted. But of course you know that.
The circumstance surrounding that remark involved a conflict about the best way to handle a disruptive poster. Mingo favored confronting such posters and I favored ignoring them. Eventually, I came to see the futility in trying to achieve an organized effort in this regard because it would require the cooperation of everyone.
The same scenario occurred at OTWA. Mingo was reluctant to follow the prevailing opinion that the disrupter should be ignored. Finally, she had to be banned by the administrator of that board.
As you can see today, the disruptive poster is still here and Mingo is still here to encourage and add emphasis to her every remark. As a result, I am seldom here and several others are seldom here. Some have left entirely. I am resigned to the fact that nothing can be done to resolve this problem.
posted on July 6, 2007 07:43:30 AM new
"""The same scenario occurred at OTWA. Mingo was reluctant to follow the prevailing opinion that the disrupter should be ignored. Finally, she had to be banned by the administrator of that board."""
Excuse me, Mingotree was NOT banned from OTWA.
linduh's being banned from OTWA was because of LINDUH, NOT because of other posters.
I was hardly the ONLY ONE who chose not to ignore her. MANY others ALSO answered her posts which they were FREE TO DO.
I am hardly the only only who chooses not to ignore her here, HELEN.
And WOW, extex "discovered" my other ID is Crowfarm. Hardly a secret since every time linduh is losing an argument and realizes it she uses that ID.
It is helpful if you have in mind auction interference.
If it ads meaning to your life in any other way ...maybe you should think about that ....
But please feel free to bring it up any time you know you're losing an argument and can't think of an intelligent answer
posted on July 6, 2007 09:38:41 AM new Mingo It was not my intention to infer that you were banned. The disruptive poster was banned. And you are right that you were not the only poster who did not choose to ignore that poster.
As I tried to indicate I now think that it makes no difference whether you respond or not. The disruptive poster will continue to post even if there is nobody here to respond. She will have her own place to "blog", similar to another board that some of us know about.
Your political comments are very knowledgeable and without this disturbance, you could be an asset to any board.
posted on July 6, 2007 09:39:59 AM new
"And WOW, extex "discovered" my other ID is Crowfarm. Hardly a secret since every time linduh is losing an argument and realizes it she uses that ID."
Wrong again, oh learned one. I just returned to this board after a long absence and recognized your style from days gone by. It's not hard to do at all. There is a moral in there somewhere.
I believe that the moral is: You should straighten up your act.
posted on July 6, 2007 09:52:11 AM new
I agree with prof51. That's not what Helen said or meant at all. But Mingo has a reading comprehension problem, so that explains it. BTW, Mingo, I have not read any of Linda's posts using the crowfarm name. And I don't lie. I find you obnoxious, but since I don't hate or dislike anyone due to my principles, I wish you the best. Namaste!
posted on July 6, 2007 10:06:50 AM newI believe that the moral is: You should straighten up your act.
For someone to go away for awhile and then come back dictating that anyone else straighten up their act to conform to how they wish to view them is unreasonable, Etexbill.
Each one of us has our own personality and posting style and I don't see anyone here changing much - I doubt any one of us can make any other poster change to meet our approval.
posted on July 6, 2007 10:52:20 AM new
Thank you for that, Helen.
And I WAS confused when it looked like you thought I was banned.
Thank you too, Kiara , for more of your calm common sense.
And as to extex:
etexbill
posted on July 6, 2007 09:39:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And WOW, extex "discovered" my other ID is Crowfarm. Hardly a secret since every time linduh is losing an argument and realizes it she uses that ID."
Wrong again, oh learned one. I just returned to this board after a long absence and recognized your style from days gone by. It's not hard to do at all.""""
(OK, you "recognized"" you didn't "discover" )
extex, """There is a moral in there somewhere.
I believe that the moral is: You should straighten up your act."""
(Uh, who are YOU to tell anyone what to do?
AND, what "act" is that? The act of proving you wrong repeatedly?
etexbill
posted on July 6, 2007 09:52:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with prof51. That's not what Helen said or meant at all. But Mingo has a reading comprehension problem, so that explains it. BTW, Mingo, I have not read any of Linda's posts using the crowfarm name. And I don't lie. """
(OK, I understand ... if extex doesn't read something it doesn't exist. HE has SPOKEN!
"""I find you obnoxious,"""
(HA! I bet you do ! I AM proud! )
"" but since I don't hate or dislike anyone due to my principles, I wish you the best. Namaste!""
posted on July 6, 2007 11:52:57 AM new
"(OK, you "recognized"" you didn't "discover"
Yep, that's what I said, oh learned one.
Your're big on semantics, but really low on personality. I'm wasting my breath on you so, again. You should straighten up your act.
posted on July 6, 2007 12:00:10 PM new
Quote: AND, what "act" is that? The act of proving you wrong repeatedly?"
No, that act that you just repeated. The act of thinking that you are always proving someone else wrong instead of giving your opinion. You don't prove anything to anyone with your postings. I hate to be the bearer of this news but you don't seem to realize it yourself. You could be very intelligent, if you didn't come across as the biggest horses --- on the board.
posted on July 6, 2007 02:26:29 PM new
Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?
Commutation Rubbish
by J.P. Freire
Posted: 07/05/2007
The idea that Mr. Fitzgerald has somehow served justice in the execution of his duties is discredited quickly with a simple analogy. If a man goes hunting for bear and comes back with a squirrel, he hasn't had a successful hunt. He has only found a snack.
My last boss, New York Times columnist John Tierney, referred to the entire Plame affair as "nada-gate." If you're in Washington, you care about this mostly unimportant court case because you can't order a sandwich without overhearing more about it. It was the OJ trial of the city, but let's be clear here. The absence of two dead bodies, mounds of evidence, and a high-profile car chase only gives insight as to just how bored people are in this town, and how desperate the media is to entertain us. This was not the trial of the century. It was far less interesting than the Simpson trial, and it makes you wish someone had died.
The story was on its way to being Watergate, as long as everyone respectfully played along and pretended that Secret Agent Joseph Wilson and Secret Agent Valerie Plame were involved in super-double-secret covert operations. If this couple had been singularly responsible for finding evidence to invade Iraq (which, thankfully, they were not), the eventual trial would have ended with a flourish. Instead it just squeaked like some small animal dying.
At least a reporter went to jail. That was fun.
President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence was derided by Democrats who were shocked, shocked to find that such political camaraderie outweighed justice. Of course, that "justice" was the product of a prosecution just as political. If the Democrats had their way, Libby would have been the political prisoner of Congress, crucified for the sins of the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq War. The presidential pardon is a political tool, just as independent prosecutors are political tools. Or just tools.
Speaking of which. It takes a special level of zeal to consider 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine to be fair judgment for a perjury charge that didn't have widespread effects. "Justice," here, is defined by the deranged people who'd rather prosecute an aide to the Vice President than consider that this was a costly prosecution that would have been worthwhile if it had gotten anything done. Mr. Fitzgerald is, after all, a government employee.
The response of those on the right that the President's decision is "APPROPRIATE" is equally, if not more, bizarre. That was the line from National Review's editors, written in all caps with a contradictory bravado. All caps for "NOT GUILTY" or "PARDON HIM," maybe, but "APPROPRIATE" sounds as empty as it looks. There is nothing appropriate about letting a man sit in limbo with gargantuan legal expenses over his head and his reputation sullied by a criminal conviction.
The President's statement on clemency seemed like an apology -- but to the people who least deserved it. The President "respect[s] the jury's verdict," but finds the sentence "excessive." This is a strange distinction if only because the negative implication is quite an indictment (no pun intended). If commuting a sentence is a sign of respecting a jury's verdict, does that mean that every presidential pardon is a slap to the jury system? Would it have been possible for the President to pardon Libby while still respecting the verdict? Was the sentencing the only bad part?
The founding fathers allowed the executive to grant clemency so that the government would err on the side of being more merciful. As a matter of discretion, a president may apply that in both inappropriate and appropriate ways. Inappropriate: Bill Clinton's pardon spree which was either a low moment in American history or a high watermark for Clinton's fundraising (take Marc Rich, whose ex-wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton Library). Appropriate: George Washington pardoning participants in the Whiskey Rebellion and Lincoln doing the same for the confederates in the Civil War. No one is concerned that there will be a Scooter Libby room in the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas.
One can argue that the President's commutation is so appropriate because Libby may eventually be exonerated through the appeals process, something that a simple pardon supposedly would never allow.[/b] But this is a ridiculous pander because it assumes that anyone whose mind needs to be changed can be changed by the appeals process. If the trial which just concluded was based entirely on shoddy memories and bad prosecution, the only promise held by an appeal is a different prosecutor. Meanwhile, more taxpayer and private money will be spent on a trial that ultimately means nothing to the public, but everything to a man so bogged down he can't do anything else.
Bush should forget about his "respect for the jury's verdict," and just pardon the guy.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 6, 2007 02:31:31 PM new
Pardon Me, But...
by Michael Reagan
Posted: 07/06/2007
Anybody who watched presidential spokesman Tony Snow face a pack of snarling White House press corps correspondents following President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence will understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy
These are the very same media hacks who turned a blind eye to Clintonista Sandy Berger stuffing national security documents in his socks, stealing them from the National Archives and destroying them and then getting nothing more in the way of punishment than a mere slap on the wrist.
Then there was Mrs. Hillary Clinton, who had the gall to issue a statement saying, "Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
Said Tony Snow: "I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it."
Here, after all, is the wife of a president who all but peddled pardons to an assortment of felons and miscreants including one malodorous fugitive from justice who had renounced his American citizenship.
Doesn’t this woman recall that on her husband’s last day in the White House he signed 140 pardons and several commutations?
Among the beneficiaries of Clinton’s compassion, according to Wikipedia :
•Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Clinton commuted the sentence on the bank fraud and Reynolds was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a halfway house.
•His half-brother Roger Clinton on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade earlier.
•Marc Rich, a fugitive who had renounced his U.S. citizenship, was pardoned for tax evasion charges. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volker’s independent investigation of the U.N. Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving more than 4 million barrels of oil.
•Carlos A. Vignali, who had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
•Almon Gledd Braswell was pardoned for his convictions for perjury and mail fraud, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.
Braswell and Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.
•In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of United Shows International, for bank fraud charges from a 1982 conviction. (They were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business in certain states.) Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.
In the wake of the pardons the Federal prosecutor in New York, Mary Jo White, was appointed to investigate what the media was calling “Pardongate.” She was replaced by James Comey, who obligingly cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing.
This same James Comey was later responsible for the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor who indicted Libby.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
HE has SPOKEN!