[OldManMac]

You're welcome, but your statement that "I've had legal training" is useless without something to back up how much training you've had, which is what I was getting at. A statement like that could mean something as simple and useless as taking some basic college courses in business law, as part of a degree in another field, while hoping that those you address it to take it as a sign that you've actually studied law in more depth.

Also, I didn't imply anything about your comprehension skills; I asked a question about how intimately familiar with the case you were, because it's possible that you may more knowledge than the rest of us about the issue, which could shed new lights on it. If you took that to mean that your comprehension skills are under attack, that's your problem, not mine.

You also don't seem to want to break away from the "Clinton did it, so Libby should get treated the same way" mentality, as if somehow Libby should be excused because Clinton got away with it. Unfortunately, life just isn't fair sometimes, and not everything can be neatly compartmentalized and wrapped up in logical little packages. People do get away with murder, although hopefully rarely, and they get away with white collar crime, and they get away with rape, and a whole raft of other crimes, but that doesn't mean that those who get caught shouldn't be punished. As has been said here numerous times already, Libby, like it or not, wound up in a legal quagmire, and is a convicted felon, and at this point it's up to the appeals process to determine whether he was unfairly convicted. You can bet that he'll have no problems getting lawyers for his appeals, as many of his friends have raised millions for his defense (he's already paid the $250K fine). That's the way the system works. Live with it, or work to change it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're welcome, but your statement that "I've had legal training" is useless without something to back up how much training you've had, which is what I was getting at. A statement like that could mean something as simple and useless as taking some basic college courses in business law, as part of a degree in another field, while hoping that those you address it to take it as a sign that you've actually studied law in more depth.

I have advanced legal training. It does not require legal training though to understand basic legal concepts and there's nothing complex about the issue. I've explained that there is precedent for cases like Libby's and gave a perfect example. Libby's punishment isn't any better or worse than the example I gave.

You also don't seem to want to break away from the "Clinton did it, so Libby should get treated the same way" mentality, as if somehow Libby should be excused because Clinton got away with it.

That's like saying to a judge "you don't seem to want to break away from "Rowe V. Wade", so that babies can stop being aborted". Precedent matters. There was a precedent set that a person in high office who lies under oath about matters which are not criminal only gets a slap on the wrist. You can't be silent when it happens as the precedent, then cry foul later when it's the politically partisan thing to do and be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, life just isn't fair sometimes, and not everything can be neatly compartmentalized and wrapped up in logical little packages.

Exactly. Which is why you need to get over Libby's commutation like I got over the fact that Clinton lied over and over in court, pressured other people to lie in court, and gave a pardon to a former business partner so that she wouldn't have to lie in court to save him from dire legal circumstances.

Sometimes life isn't fair.

[Dork.]

Wow, this thread really has hit the crapper! In an attempt to be objective, I'll bring up the main questions I see this case bringing up:

- Should the penalty for a crime like perjury be softened if the perjury is not covering up any illegal activity? Or if the perjurer is a first-time offender with a stellar public service record?

- How much latitude should a Prosecutor have in bringing up perjury and obstruction charges that were uncovered in the course of an investigation into something else? Should a different prosecutor take over the follow-up case?

- Should the President grant pardons (or, in this case, commutations) without a strict legal justification that complies with his Justice Department's norms? (I know he can -- it's his perogative -- but should he?)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Precedent matters. There was a precedent set that a person in high office who lies under oath about matters which are not criminal only gets a slap on the wrist. You can't be silent when it happens as the precedent, then cry foul later when it's the politically partisan thing to do and be taken seriously.

Ahh, one difference here: while Libby held a high position in government, it was not an elected public office which is subject to impeachment proceedings. Clinton's case set no precedent for Libby. The only penalty you can give a President while in office is his removal from office. You can give all sorts of penalties to other people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Ahh, one difference here: while Libby held a high position in government, it was not an elected public office which is subject to impeachment proceedings.

A difference without distinction. An impeachment is just a formal slap on the wrist from Congress. Libby got his own form of wrist slap.

Clinton's case set no precedent for Libby. The only penalty you can give a President while in office is his removal from office. You can give all sorts of penalties to other people.

If a President is guilty of committing a felony while in office, then that would require his removal unless your setting a precedent that the type of crime he committed only results in a "wrist slap". The President is no more immune to legal jeopardy than any other American. He isn't a King and has no protection from prosecution just because he was elected to office.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A difference without distinction. An impeachment is just a formal slap on the wrist from Congress. Libby got his own form of wrist slap.
....
If a President is guilty of committing a felony while in office, then that would require his removal unless your setting a precedent that the type of crime he committed only results in a "wrist slap". The President is no more immune to legal jeopardy than any other American. He isn't a King and has no protection from prosecution just because he was elected to office.

Actually, he does (sort of) have protection from prosecution while in office. (I don't think it's spelled out in the Constitution like for legislators, but I believe that if the President did anything that merited prosecution, he would be impeached first.) But he's not totally immune, since he can be prosecuted after leaving office. This is why Ford pardoned Nixon after he left office. Even though Nixon wasn't impeached, he could still be prosecuted after leaving office.

Originally Posted by Article I of the Constitution

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law

In any case, Impeachment proceedings are sufficiently different from jury trials that I find it pointless to equate the two.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

In any case, Impeachment proceedings are sufficiently different from jury trials that I find it pointless to equate the two.

Clinton wasn't found to have done anything warranting indictment, and as you pointed out there was a process to see to it that if he had done anything worth indictment, that he could be. Libby did the same thing but had the book thrown at him. That's the bottom line and a precedent was set.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Clinton wasn't found to have done anything warranting indictment, and as you pointed out there was a process to see to it that if he had done anything worth indictment, that he could be. Libby did the same thing but had the book thrown at him. That's the bottom line and a precedent was set.

But getting an indictment through the impeachment process is nothing like getting an indictment through a grand jury. Grand Jury indictments are legal processes that are supposed to run on the basis of the facts (The "preponderance of evidence", I think), not of politics. Impeachment proceedings are inherently political beasts. You simply can't compare the two.

Impeachment may look like a legal process, but it's not. It's legislative and political, and I contend it can't be used as precedent for legal proceedings against someone who can't be impeached.

I do agree with your basic point, though: that Clinton did essentially the same thing that Libby did. But the fact that Clinton was not convicted shouldn't set any expectation that Libby should not have been.

But if you wanted to blame anyone for the fact that Clinton did not serve any jail time, I think you should blame the Republicans who pushed the impeachment process through without regard to whether it would result in a conviction or not. If Congress has simply reprimanded Clinton, there existed the possibility that he could be indicted for it after he left office. When the conviction bid failed in the Senate, Clinton was effectively exonerated, which was a better outcome than I think he could have realistically expected in a court of law.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But getting an indictment through the impeachment process is nothing like getting an indictment through a grand jury.

You're right. The impeachment process doesn't cause any personal legal hassles. That does make it appear that Libby would be getting punished more for doing less than someone in the previous administratoin.

I do agree with your basic point, though: that Clinton did essentially the same thing that Libby did. But the fact that Clinton was not convicted shouldn't set any expectation that Libby should not have been.

Not convicted? He wasn't even INDICTED. The fact that they did nothing but slap Clinton on the wrist was a precedent. You can't treat members of different political parties different. You've got to treat them equally. The fact that Libby wasn't being treated equally for less of a crime is justifaction enough for a commutation of a sentenc.e

If Congress has simply reprimanded Clinton, there existed the possibility that he could be indicted for it after he left office. When the conviction bid failed in the Senate, Clinton was effectively exonerated, which was a better outcome than I think he could have realistically expected in a court of law.

Huh? You get exhonerated when you are impeached? That's some fuzzy logic you got there. AND OF COURSE, as you stated, the impeachment proceedings had nothing to do with law. If the standard is that you throw the book at someone who lies about non-criminal actions during a political witch hunt, then Clinton should have been prosecuted. He wasn't, and a standard was set. I'm sorry that some of the people who support/supported Clinton NOW want a different standard to be put into place. It does nothing but lessen their credibility. When I saw Jesse Jackson called for impeachment over it, I knew the guy was a real intellectual lightweight. What a kook!

[tie]

stupendousman, post after post after post makes it clear that you are mad about what happened to Clinton. And yet you defend Bush on Libby. It doesn't add up!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, post after post after post makes it clear that you are mad about what happened to Clinton. And yet you defend Bush on Libby. It doesn't add up!

I think he is trying to prove a point that many are hypocritical. This may be a fair argument, but now is not the time to make it, because we aren't talking about these past cases.

We are talking about this current case, and the simple question is: was what was done right or wrong? The simple answer from most here, I'm hoping, is "yes!" That is it! What party the convicted individual was a part of is utterly irrelevant, period.

If you want to blow partisan smokescreens and claim that your party is superior, great, make that a separate conversation (one that I won't be a part of). This question is not about which party is more hypocritical or superior.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, post after post after post makes it clear that you are mad about what happened to Clinton. And yet you defend Bush on Libby. It doesn't add up!

He keeps trying to base his argument on precedent, which is at best a flimsy excuse. It's been pointed out numerous times to him that society can't base law on erroneous precedent, but he's apparently not going to give up, because he needs that excuse to gore someone else's ox, while telling others to be impartial.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think the cases of Clinton and Libby are readily comparable: it started out as something about Clinton's pardons and now it's about Clinton's case himself. There are two distinct topics that are completely mingled in this argument: (i) the pardons issued by Presidents (e. g. Clinton and Bush Jr.) and (ii) the crimes committed by Libby and others who have been sentenced by a court of law (/jury of peers).

It seems to me that stupendousman wants to perpetuate the myth of an inherent `liberal' or Democratic bias in the judicial system (when Libby was in fact convicted by a jury of peers).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, post after post after post makes it clear that you are mad about what happened to Clinton. And yet you defend Bush on Libby. It doesn't add up!

I'm not really mad. I understand. I accept a slap on the wrist for what amounts to fibbing during a political witch hunt. I'm willing to accept that standard for both men. Apparently, some don't want to, and that's quite hypocritical.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

He keeps trying to base his argument on precedent, which is at best a flimsy excuse. It's been pointed out numerous times to him that society can't base law on erroneous precedent, but he's apparently not going to give up, because he needs that excuse to gore someone else's ox, while telling others to be impartial.

So you believe that one member of the current democratic front-running co-presidency should have done prison time?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think the cases of Clinton and Libby are readily comparable: it started out as something about Clinton's pardons and now it's about Clinton's case himself.

No, it started out by people complaining that Libby was getting off easy for the same thing (actually, less serious as Libby didn't suborn perjury and if he didn't tell the truth it had virtually no impact on him since what he testified to wasn't illegal and likely not subject to any real civil action) that Clinton had done by people who still today support the Clinton's.

It seems to me that stupendousman wants to perpetuate the myth of an inherent `liberal' or Democratic bias in the judicial system (when Libby was in fact convicted by a jury of peers).

Libby was indicted. Clinton was not. It can be argued that what Clinton did was much worse. How is that not an example of bias?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, it started out by people complaining that Libby was getting off easy for the same thing

It is you who is claiming it is the same thing. It isn't.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

… (actually, less serious as Libby didn't suborn perjury and if he didn't tell the truth it had virtually no impact on him since what he testified to wasn't illegal and likely not subject to any real civil action) that Clinton had done by people who still today support the Clinton's.

And that's also just your assessment … to which you add even more confusion here. You're saying that Libby's wrongdoings `are likely not subject to any real civil action': Libby wasn't convicted by a civil court and the root cause here about a potential violation of a federal offense. The latter is slightly more serious.

If you want to compare Libby's sentence and find out whether it's fair or not, you have to look at other people who have been found guilty of similar crimes. You are focussing on the latter aspect at best: Clinton has never been in a court of law for lying under oath.
And yet you insist to compare a convicted felon to someone who hasn't even seen the inside of a court room for that (and consequently hasn't been punished)

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Libby was indicted. Clinton was not. It can be argued that what Clinton did was much worse. How is that not an example of bias?

You are wildly connecting random dots until the pictures suits you. Libby was in criminal court and sentenced by a jury of his peers -- unless the jurors were biased against Libby (which would mean that Libby had lousy attorneys), he was found guilty with no inherent bias.
Clinton wasn't even charged because Congress (with Republican majority) has decided against impeaching Clinton. Even though there was bias against Clinton, he wasn't impeached.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you believe that one member of the current democratic front-running co-presidency should have done prison time?

Now there's a question I want to see answered!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It is you who is claiming it is the same thing. It isn't.

And that's also just your assessment … to which you add even more confusion here. You're saying that Libby's wrongdoings `are likely not subject to any real civil action': Libby wasn't convicted by a civil court and the root cause here about a potential violation of a federal offense. The latter is slightly more serious.

If you want to compare Libby's sentence and find out whether it's fair or not, you have to look at other people who have been found guilty of similar crimes. You are focussing on the latter aspect at best: Clinton has never been in a court of law for lying under oath.
And yet you insist to compare a convicted felon to someone who hasn't even seen the inside of a court room for that (and consequently hasn't been punished)

You are wildly connecting random dots until the pictures suits you. Libby was in criminal court and sentenced by a jury of his peers -- unless the jurors were biased against Libby (which would mean that Libby had lousy attorneys), he was found guilty with no inherent bias.
Clinton wasn't even charged because Congress (with Republican majority) have decided against impeaching Clinton. Even though there was bias against Clinton, he wasn't impeached.

Save your breath; he can't (or more accurately, doesn't want to) see the differences.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It is you who is claiming it is the same thing. It isn't.

You're right. As I've explained, Clinton did worse.

And that's also just your assessment … to which you add even more confusion here. You're saying that Libby's wrongdoings `are likely not subject to any real civil action': Libby wasn't convicted by a civil court and the root cause here about a potential violation of a federal offense. The latter is slightly more serious.

He wasn't subject to criminal action because no crime was committed. The prosecutor knew who leaked the information to the press, which started the press asking the questions to everyone else. It's POSSIBLE that he'd be sugject to a lawsuit or something (I think that Plame is suing someone) but how they'd ever win would be a mystery to me.

If you want to compare Libby's sentence and find out whether it's fair or not, you have to look at other people who have been found guilty of similar crimes.

Not at all. If some people are prosecuted and found guilty, and some people are simply patted on the wrists and not even prosecuted for worse, it's fair to show the disparity in action and point out the unfairness of it.

You are focussing on the latter aspect at best: Clinton has never been in a court of law for lying under oath.
And yet you insist to compare a convicted felon to someone who hasn't even seen the inside of a court room for that (and consequently hasn't been punished)

The irony meter is pegging high this evening. You're making my point for me. Bill Clinton did everything Libby is accused of doing, AND WORSE and he didn't even get prosecuted. That sets a precedent, IMO. You can't let Clinton off the hook for worse, then say that Libby is treated fairly when he did less and got more punishment. It simply isn't a rational argument. Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Save your breath; he can't (or more accurately, doesn't want to) see the differences.

I don't take into account differences without distinction. Both men are said to have told less than the truth while in the midst of what most might see as a political witch hunt. One was let off with a slap on the wrist, the other is a convicted felon who was given jail time.

I see differences, but the only real difference is in how one was given a pass, while the other was made an example of for the same crime. Given that fact, it's not unfair to judge the matter based on the precedent set during the last administration. Libby STILL got off worse than Clinton, even with the commutation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Now there's a question I want to see answered!

Yes. For all the people crying foul that Libby was given unfair treatment, it's more than a fair question.

I'm seeing people do backflips trying to rationalize their partisan responses to this issue, and it's highly entertaining!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

True that.

And gee, still no answer!

Personally, it amazes me what people selectively choose to get all bent out of shape over with all of these crooked politicians and bureaucrats. Most of them routinely commit fraud, mismanagement, embezzlement and out-and-out theft of billions upon billions of our hard earned tax dollars- things that at a far lesser level in the private sector would earn anyone caught doing them a stiff jail sentence and ruined career.

And yet people get all bent out of shape over some bullcrap like this,simply because the media has singled it out and boiled it down into some kind of bumper sticker for them to focus on.

[tie]

It amazes me how you don't get bent out of shape about anything involving Republicans, Crash.

But after all, Libby was Cheney's aide, and Cheney is one of the most corrupt politicians out there (presumably the one you were referring to by "out-and-out theft of billions upon billions of our hard earned tax dollars"?).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

It amazes me how you don't get bent out of shape about anything involving Republicans, Crash.

But after all, Libby was Cheney's aide, and Cheney is one of the most corrupt politicians out there (presumably the one you were referring to by "out-and-out theft of billions upon billions of our hard earned tax dollars"?).

A. It's hard to get bent about anything after 8 years of scandal after scandal, "no controlling legal authority", a President committing blatant felonies while in office, the administration turning an entire Government department into a branch of their political party fund raising arm, and political strategy that amounted to sending out a personal smear and destroy team out whenever someone opposed the previous president or wished to whistleblow when he'd been doing bad things. At the end, the standard to which we were forced to accept simply made me hardly care anymore. But that's on a bi-partisan level. I'm willing accept the standard that was put into place for BOTH parties now. I"m not going to support a guy and his wife who were thoroughly corrupt, then complain when the opposition does something slightly bad.

B. Even given that, if there was actually a shred of evidence that Cheney had actually been involved in "out-and-out theft of billions upon billions of our hard earned tax dollars", I'd have no problems seeing him removed from office and put in jail. There's no more evidence that he did that than there is that Clinton had Vince Foster and Ron Brown killed. Let's leave the extreme, conspiracy theory based unproveable claims to those on the extreme, conspiratorial fringes of the left and right, okay?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. It's hard to get bent about anything after 8 years of scandal after scandal, "no controlling legal authority", a President committing blatant felonies while in office, the administration turning an entire Government department into a branch of their political party fund raising arm, and political strategy that amounted to sending out a personal smear and destroy team out whenever someone opposed the previous president or wished to whistleblow when he'd been doing bad things. At the end, the standard to which we were forced to accept simply made me hardly care anymore. But that's on a bi-partisan level. I'm willing accept the standard that was put into place for BOTH parties now. I"m not going to support a guy and his wife who were thoroughly corrupt, then complain when the opposition does something slightly bad.

I think we should leave Bush out of this discussion.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

It amazes me how you don't get bent out of shape about anything involving Republicans, Crash.

It amazes me how you get bent out of shape about anything involving Republicans, Tie. But you look the other way when it's Democrats.

Personally, I'd be in favor of locking all these crooks up, I don't care which party, and keep them all out of our lives.

Your ilk wants to put the same ****heads in charge of your health, income and wellbeing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your ilk wants to put the same ****heads in charge of your health, income and wellbeing.

Why do you see it this way? There is plenty of evidence that many politicians are personally corrupt, but don't you need more than just an assumption to make accusations of cronyism (sp?!), especially since nobody has been appointed yet? Of course the possibility exists, but we don't know anything yet...

Several Bush appointees, on the other hand, can be judged based on their actual (poor) performance and ties to the Bush family (e.g. Harriet Myers). Why would legislators be fired if there was no evidence of poor performance?

Ideally, somebody put in charge of something like health would not be a career politician, but simply a non-partisan expert of the system.

You need to wait for the Democrats to make their move once they win the next election before making such claims.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ideally, somebody put in charge of something like health would not be a career politician, but simply a non-partisan expert of the system.

You have no f***ing clue who'd "be put in charge of healthcare" and it just proves my point. You're willing to put YOUR HEALTH and welfare in the hands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats capable of the same blatant corruption as any other, rather than take responsibility for yourself.

[Dakarʒ]

There's no winning this argument. Republicans will be hypocrites because now its one of their guys, Democrats will be hypocrites because they've done the same when it was one of their guys.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ideally, somebody put in charge of something like health would not be a career politician, but simply a non-partisan expert of the system.

Like a Surgeon General?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You have no f***ing clue who'd "be put in charge of healthcare" and it just proves my point. You're willing to put YOUR HEALTH and welfare in the hands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats capable of the same blatant corruption as any other, rather than take responsibility for yourself.

I know this argument will not go anywhere, but what would I gain putting my trust in a single company? I'm stuck with the same lock-in, corruption, and crazy inflated prices to boot.

At least I can vote out politicians I don't like, in theory.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Like a Surgeon General?

I guess, I don't know too much about them... Are they basically appointed advisers to politicians in charge of health?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

There's no winning this argument. Republicans will be hypocrites because now its one of their guys, Democrats will be hypocrites because they've done the same when it was one of their guys.

And people who don't give a **** what party the person committing the felon belongs to just tear out their hair watching these idiotic battles being waged between partisans.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know this argument will not go anywhere, but what would I gain putting my trust in a single company?

What single company controls your healthcare?

At least I can vote out politicians I don't like, in theory.

You're not stuck with any single entity that forces you to buy healthcare that you can't "vote out" with your own wallet. You're the one arguing in favor of CREATING that entity in the form of the same corrupt government that produces Clintons, Cheneys and Libbys.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What single company controls your healthcare?

Whatever company my employer has partnered with. How am I voting with my wallet, other than looking for a new job somewhere else?

You're not stuck with any single entity that forces you to buy healthcare that you can't "vote out" with your own wallet. You're the one arguing in favor of CREATING that entity in the form of the same corrupt government that produces Clintons, Cheneys and Libbys.

So the alternative choice is to be without health care altogether?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever company my employer has partnered with. How am I voting with my wallet, other than looking for a new job somewhere else?

You're not forced to go with the insurance your employer offers. You can opt out and buy your own. And yes, you can look for a new job somewhere else as well, especially if you're a hypochondriac who thinks he's going to keel over at any minute and whatever insurance you currently have isn't enough to cover the possibility of constant imminent doom.

So the alternative choice is to be without health care altogether?

No, the alternative choice is to buy your own health insurance, and not expect someone else to be forced to buy it for you. But then, you knew that.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. It's hard to get bent about anything after 8 years of scandal after scandal, "no controlling legal authority", a President committing blatant felonies while in office, the administration turning an entire Government department into a branch of their political party fund raising arm, and political strategy that amounted to sending out a personal smear and destroy team out whenever someone opposed the previous president or wished to whistleblow when he'd been doing bad things. At the end, the standard to which we were forced to accept simply made me hardly care anymore. But that's on a bi-partisan level. I'm willing accept the standard that was put into place for BOTH parties now. I"m not going to support a guy and his wife who were thoroughly corrupt, then complain when the opposition does something slightly bad.

This is my point exactly, again. You are a hypocrite. You continue to post these diatribes against Clinton, but nothing Bush does can rock your boat.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Personally, I'd be in favor of locking all these crooks up, I don't care which party, and keep them all out of our lives.

I guess you mean Bush, Cheney and Libby? I agree.

Your ilk wants to put the same ****heads in charge of your health, income and wellbeing.

I don't know what "your ilk" means since certainly I don't want government officials (and definitely not Bush or Cheney) in charge of my health, income or well being. Have you heard the latest Surgeon General's Warning?

[besson3c]

Crash and others,

The bottom line is that all of these arguments about precedent are bullshit arguments.

Precedent doesn't mean that because something has been one way, it should stay that way forever. Precedent does not make something right, nor the best way that things are done. Precedent is not untouchable.

How do you change precedent? Well, you certainly can't change what things have been done in the past, this is history. You can only change what is happening now, or will be happening in the future.

All you have to do is take a look at this situation and ask yourself whether you are cool with it happening the way it is. If you are and your arguments are not based around a bullshit rationale such as "precedent", but some other sound justification (I don't know what that would be in this case), fine. If you aren't pleased with the commute, it is wrong, and it should be changed NOW. There is no better time to change "precedent" than right now, and the way this is done is by condemning what is going on, not blowing it off with feeble arguments about precedent.

What is going on is wrong. Therefore, please shut up about precedent, this is extremely weak.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're not forced to go with the insurance your employer offers. You can opt out and buy your own. And yes, you can look for a new job somewhere else as well, especially if you're a hypochondriac who thinks he's going to keel over at any minute and whatever insurance you currently have isn't enough to cover the possibility of constant imminent doom.



No, the alternative choice is to buy your own health insurance, and not expect someone else to be forced to buy it for you. But then, you knew that.

If I have a family, maybe, just maybe $10,000/year and upwards of this might not be an option I can afford? Therefore, it is not an option, just like it is not an option for me to buy a jet.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think we should leave Bush out of this discussion.

I'll be generous. Just list the felonies Bush has blatantly engaged in, and the evidence and I'll at the very least consider your reply a true rebutall and not just a retarded partisan brain hiccup.

Deal?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

There's no winning this argument. Republicans will be hypocrites because now its one of their guys, Democrats will be hypocrites because they've done the same when it was one of their guys.

I've stated my opinion and it's pretty well consistent regardless of the party in question. All I ask is the same for everyone else if they want to be taken seriously. This thread is evidence that such a level of maturity on a universal level is pretty much a deal breaker.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

This is my point exactly, again. You are a hypocrite. You continue to post these diatribes against Clinton, but nothing Bush does can rock your boat.

Actually, I've just stated the facts. I'm not more upset with Clinton than with Bush. I'm aware that Bush has done "bad things" and I'm not all that fond of him. But, if Clinton got a pass for much worse, then it's not far to expect a higher standard from Bush and people like Libby and STILL support Clinton and his wife. You can't have it both ways. I'm willing to accept a single standard. I always have been. YOU and other apparently are not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash and others,

The bottom line is that all of these arguments about precedent are bullshit arguments.

The blatant bullshit is the idea that you can have it both ways. Support a guy who does worse over a guy who does less just because of politics, then say "oh..but, forget about my inconsistent standards and past precedent...those aren't important".

Yeah...RIGHT!

How do you change precedent? Well, you certainly can't change what things have been done in the past, this is history. You can only change what is happening now, or will be happening in the future.

You change precedent by insisting on consistency. Again, if you want to decide that what Libby did was bad and deserving of prison time, then you have to go on record as stating that Bill Clinton should have had prison time as well and doesn't deserve to go anywhere near the White House for his criminal acts. The fact that people who are railing against Libby will NEVER do that (at least most of them), will clue in everyone looking for fairness that the effort in question is a partisan one, and not one designed to do "what is right".

I'm willing to accept either standard as long as it's consistent. A standard which states that it's fair for republicans who violate crimes to be punished with prison time for the same crimes democrats got off with a wrist slap isn't a consistent standard. You're going to have to swallow hard and flush your bad turds or have to put up with the smell of the ones belonging to others

What is going on is wrong. Therefore, please shut up about precedent, this is extremely weak.

Not at all. What's weak is your unwillingness to be consistent in order to attack someone because of their political affiliations. Otherwise, I'll join in the thread where you ask about the statue of limitations for perjury, and if it's too late to send Bill Clinton to prison...IF keeping someone who perjured themselves out of prison is "wrong" as you state.

[besson3c]

precedent... lame.

[besson3c]

Crash: unless people are pushing for a retrial/appeal or going through legal procedures to rectify a wrong, we can't change history. Precedent is meaningless when it comes down to what is right or wrong. Precedent is useful in discussing legal consistency, but I don't think people here are making legal arguments, they are making moral ones. What Bush/Libby did was wrong.

You can babble on about Clinton all you want, but none if this changes what is wrong or right today - period. It's really that simple.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, I've just stated the facts. I'm not more upset with Clinton than with Bush.

No you didn't. You posted a diatribe. You are clearly still more upset with Clinton than with Bush. Just a sentence later, you write:

Clinton got a pass for much worse

I guess referring to

8 years of scandal after scandal, "no controlling legal authority", a President committing blatant felonies while in office, the administration turning an entire Government department into a branch of their political party fund raising arm, and political strategy that amounted to sending out a personal smear and destroy team out whenever someone opposed the previous president or wished to whistleblow when he'd been doing bad things.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

No you didn't. You posted a diatribe. You are clearly still more upset with Clinton than with Bush.

Not at all. AGAIN, what did I say that wasn't true? Even if I WAS more upset with Clinton for doing worse, what does it matter? I'm willing to be consistent and expect the same standards for both men and Libby too regardless of what party they belong to. Just pick a standard and stick to it instead of basing your outrage soley on politics.

I'd be glad to post negative things about Bush...but that's all I see here. Why offer something what's already being given freely? Especially when it's clear that there some are holding people to different standards entirely due to politics.

Start acting like you REALLY care about any this for reasons that go above and beyond politics and hold EVERYONE to the same standard and I think you'll find that you'll be taken more seriously. Otherwise, keep shaking your fist at the sun.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

precedent... lame.

Yeah...consistency and fairness sure is lame when your goal is partisanship and revenge. I agree.