posted on February 22, 2001 11:58:11 AM new
Actually quite a number of Democrats have come out to speak against the pardon. Everyone from Sen. Chuck Schumer to Rep. Charlie Rangel, both people who are not only generally Clinton supporters but also straight shooters.
The New York Times, the Daily News and the New York Newsday (the three liberal dailys in NY) have all criticized the pardon.
It's fair to say "let's move on" -- after all, it's a fait accompli -- but it's really grasping at straws to claim that this action that has been condemned as an attack on justice across the board can't be criticized. So while some Democrats may dissaprove of Carter's comments, the Democratic political establishment is exactly in line with him.
posted on February 22, 2001 12:36:46 PM newNot surprisingly, you seem to fail to notice that the only people here who are dwelling on the past are bush supporters.
Perhaps that is just this thread. However, if I were to look in one of the many Bush bashing theads, I could easily find many Gore supporters (or Democrats) who love to live in the past as well. Somehow I find Clinton's "problems" more relevant than if Bush attended his last AA meeting or calling him a cokehead. So, to all the Democrats or Bush bashers, out there, who hate it when Clinton is picked on by anyone.. and start yelling about how it's in the past. Just remember, that you are just as guilty for bringing up the past as anyone else.
(note: this post is not necessarily directed at anyone in particular. I just find it hypocritical when there's two sets of standards being used ~~~ It's ok to "condem" the past of one but it's not kosher to bring up the past of another. Now that's a crock.)
posted on February 22, 2001 01:02:24 PM newgaffan - When I form my opinions I work at putting myself in the other's place. If I had earned the $400,000.00 and felt I'd done nothing wrong, I would not return the funds for any reason. No matter how it 'looked' to anyone, no matter who was asking me to do so. I'd spend my energies defending why I felt what I'd done was above board and within the law.
bobbysoxer Glad you enjoyed 'Erin'.
nutspec I agree that these things make it look like we have two systems of justice. One for the rich, one for the poor. Looks like one needs to be a relative, friend or large contributor in order to get a pardon. I personally don't feel that's what our founding fathers had in mind when this pardon process was given to any president.
Helen You don't seem to believe what Fox News reports (as is your choice), but please be aware that they, along with many other news reporting services, use AP as a source. So, while I may be reporting what Fox News or MSNBC has posted online, it doesn't mean other reporting agencies are not reporting on exactly the same news. While other posters here only believe what is printed on The New York Times or in The New York Post, others (like myself) have our own preferences also.
You guys read too much into things. I was making a comment that your opinion is no more better than anyone regardless which side of the fence they are standing or if a person is sitting on it.
posted on February 22, 2001 01:15:24 PM new
krs - you seem to fail to notice that the only people here who are dwelling on the past are bush supporters.
Not sure what you mean, as we're discussing current event issues. If you mean do I see people, of both sides, posting their views on these threads, yes I see that.
[i]Now, in case you are including
me in your little fits, and I have no doubt that you are[/i] I find it laughable that you judge I'm having "little fits", I'm again not sure what you're referring to.
[i]allow me to point out to you the limitations of your attention span with a referral to a thread and some posts from the not so long ago past, where I would have thought that you live as much as you talk about Bill Clinton. Note the date :
(they've purged the thread since I copied from it, it would seem)[/i]
Okay, say what the thread would have showed me.
posted on February 22, 2001 01:18:46 PM new
The relevent posts are right there, but when I tried the link to the thread that contains them, it doesn't go anymore. AW blitzed it.
posted on February 22, 2001 01:30:54 PM new
According to the Associated Press (Well know part of the vast right wing conspiracy)
"The money included $200,000 after the Braswell pardon was granted and the rest paid over a period time as Rodman worked on the Vignali Commutation." It was said that the money amount returned totaled just below $400,000.
The next part of the AP story was that the Campaign Treasurer for Hillary assisted in, and was paid $4,000 in helping to get pardons for two Republicans convicted in the 80's of Tax charges.
The treasurer - William Cunningham is the law partner of longtime Clinton advisor Harold Ickes and said Ickes reffered the two men to him about a week before Clinton left office.
(A WEEK! I've been working for my friend for 10 Years!) (Sorry, editorial comment)
At least he was equal opportunity in passing out these "Indulgences" regardless of party.
posted on February 22, 2001 03:25:25 PM new
Like it or not, Bush is our President. Just as some people did not like things that Clinton did, there will inevitably be people that do not like what Bush is doing.
So what is my opinion? I say he's our President. It doesn't matter if I am a republican or democrat, I will support him, just as I did Mr. Clinton. People in their position deserve respect--they are running our country.
posted on February 22, 2001 03:44:56 PM new
Well, fine, but until you have held that position, I don't think you have much room to criticize. And, no, this is not a democracy, this is a republic. If it were a democracy, we would not have the electoral college. But yes, you have a right to voice your opinion.
posted on February 22, 2001 03:51:46 PM new
Semantics aside, I'm not going to negate my own clear analysis to bow to the whims of the "big" people on the premise that they're above criticism. Their s*it stinks like everyone else.
posted on February 22, 2001 05:35:49 PM new
I despise Clinton...and I've had 8 long years to refine the quality of my deep and abiding disgust with that wretched excuse for a...god, I just can't think what I can call him in public. He shames us. He's earned my disrespect, many times over.
Bush hasn't done anything to tick me off...yet. He's getting close...playing fast and loose with the separation of church and state.
I'll respect Bush, if and when he earns it. The man just hasn't had a chance to do anything yet...for good or ill. We'll know, soon enough. Given what I've learned of politicians in general, I'm not optimistic. Always hopeful, though.
posted on February 22, 2001 09:02:24 PM new
Very true, december3. My opinion is thus: like it or not, we're stuck with him for a couple of years...so you might as well get your panties out of that knot and get used to it. There's no sense in blowing all this steam when it's getting you nowhere.
Why bother with all the fuss and arguing? What good is it doing you? Does it just make you feel good to argue? What's the point?
Got a problem? Go write G.W. yourself. He has an email address like the rest of us...though I can't remember what it is. Anybody know?
posted on February 22, 2001 09:57:18 PM new
I had heard that the family sent him there after the S & L Scandals, but I thought that maybe he decided to do some real penance, until the government faith-based subsidies kicked in anyway. I guess that they've still got his head in the sand though. On closer inspection it doesn't appear to be the same Neil.
posted on February 22, 2001 10:26:08 PM new
Plastic surgery can perform amazing makeovers, and it could be a bush plan for the family to get in on the new government subsidies under faith based social servives payments.
I'd be worth untold millions.
On the other hand, they're probably already set up to gain from the plan using untraceable belief systems.
