Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Libby's prison sentence has been commuted

Libby's prison sentence has been commuted (Page 4)
Thread Tools
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If I have a family, maybe, just maybe $10,000/year and upwards of this might not be an option I can afford?
If you have a family, maybe, just maybe you should grow up and find a way to provide for them. Where do you get this notion that it's my responsibility (or anyone else's other than yourself) to provide for your family? I take care of my own family, I expect you to take care of yours. If that's too harsh a reality for you, tough.

If you or your family had some spectacularly unusual handicap that would keep you from being able to provide for yourselves, I'm all in favor of the rest of society pitching in to help you out. THAT's the type of situation that societal charity should exist for. But I'm sick and friggen tired of able bodied people acting like it's too impossible for them to be expected to carry their own weight in this world. To those types, I say: GROW THE F UP ALREADY.

Now, I'm all for health care costing far less for your family -and everyone else's- (and I'd wager you could probably find coverage for less than $10,000 a year, or you could go with what your company provides) but the notion that health care will ever be "free" is just a leftwing fantasy.

Either you'll pay for it directly, have it provided by your employer, or someone else will have to pay for it. The problem with the system you want, is that those other people you want to pay for your health care through massive increases in their taxes and the erosion of their economic freedom, may not be an option THEY can afford.

The way to make health care cost less, is not to turn it into a massive government boondoggle run by corrupt and clueless bureaucrats. We need to eliminate many of the problems in the free market system we have, not replace it with an even worse socialist system.

And the whole approach of just focusing on the false goalpost of "universal coverage" without any attention paid to increasing efficiency, lowering costs, removing the massive costs of frivolous litigation, providing better service, and being sure you're not creating longer wait times and even more problems than are fixed, is backward.

Therefore, it is not an option, just like it is not an option for me to buy a jet.
So maybe you could claim that paying your rent or mortgage isn't an option. Or paying for your groceries. Or paying for the clothes you wear. After all, food, shelter and clothing are the most essential requirements. Perhaps we need big government run boondoggles to provide you with all those things as well? Where does this sense of entitlement end?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Crash and others,
The bottom line is that all of these arguments about precedent are bullshit arguments.
Not sure why you're addressing all these rants about precedent at me, but looks like stupendousman has already set you straight.

I find it hilarous that you're trying to float this silly argument, when for a decade EVERY.SINGLE.TIME there's been a discussion about Clinton's perjury, those on the left have had to be told (EVERY TIME!) that that was what the whole thing was even about! You've ALWAYS, without fail, tried to paint it as just about him having sex with a chubby intern, and NEVER owned up to the fact that he commited perjury. Like clockwork (anyone could set their watch to the absolute CERTAINTY of it!) you've always brought up the sex charges, floated that the whole incident was only about sex, and shrugged off the perjury -that you had to be reminded was the RELEVANT thing- with a "ho-hum"! You know it, I know, it, everyone knows it.

For leftists that have been pulling that nonsense for a decade to then turn around and crow about (OF ALL THINGS!) someone committing perjury and then feign outrage at how "serious" it is to commit perjury, is just laughably ludicrous!

If you can't see that, and how you can't just whine foul and try and demand no one bring up your ilk's behavior when it came to the very same charge brought against a Democrat you covered for, then tough. OF COURSE you don't want anyone to remind you of such blatant hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, many conservatives have never wavered on this issue. Perjury is a serious offense. We've been telling people like you that for YEARS whenever you started in with your "Republicans were just out to get Clinton for NO REASON..." bullcrap and had to be reminded YET AGAIN about the perjury and the real reason he was even on trial in the first place when he did perjure himself- you know, those pesky facts you were hoping to sweep under the rug.

Personally, I could give a good crap if Scooter Libby went to jail. If he perjured himself, and that's the punishment for doing so, then good riddance. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen, because of the prez-pardon. The SAME power you didn't have any problem with your boy Clinton using. In this very thread, you and others tried your best to ignore the fact that Clinton pardoned people for far worse (your blatantly lame attempt to only focus on some cheese stupidity, while ignoring everything else stands as a perfect example) so once again, I don't see where you have any leg to stand on in whining about the pardon process being any big shocker either.

Your only real "outrage" over any of this, is that this case involves a Republican that you hate, and not a Democrat that you like. That and the media has convinced you its something to get all bent in a wad over.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Not sure why you're addressing all these rants about precedent at me, but looks like stupendousman has already set you straight.

I find it hilarous that you're trying to float this silly argument, when for a decade EVERY.SINGLE.TIME there's been a discussion about Clinton's perjury, those on the left have had to be told (EVERY TIME!) that that was what the whole thing was even about! You've ALWAYS, without fail, tried to paint it as just about him having sex with a chubby intern, and NEVER owned up to the fact that he commited perjury. Like clockwork (anyone could set their watch to the absolute CERTAINTY of it!) you've always brought up the sex charges, floated that the whole incident was only about sex, and shrugged off the perjury -that you had to be reminded was the RELEVANT thing- with a "ho-hum"! You know it, I know, it, everyone knows it.

For leftists that have been pulling that nonsense for a decade to then turn around and crow about (OF ALL THINGS!) someone committing perjury and then feign outrage at how "serious" it is to commit perjury, is just laughably ludicrous!

If you can't see that, and how you can't just whine foul and try and demand no one bring up your ilk's behavior when it came to the very same charge brought against a Democrat you covered for, then tough. OF COURSE you don't want anyone to remind you of such blatant hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, many conservatives have never wavered on this issue. Perjury is a serious offense. We've been telling people like you that for YEARS whenever you started in with your "Republicans were just out to get Clinton for NO REASON..." bullcrap and had to be reminded YET AGAIN about the perjury and the real reason he was even on trial in the first place when he did perjure himself- you know, those pesky facts you were hoping to sweep under the rug.

Personally, I could give a good crap if Scooter Libby went to jail. If he perjured himself, and that's the punishment for doing so, then good riddance. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen, because of the prez-pardon. The SAME power you didn't have any problem with your boy Clinton using. In this very thread, you and others tried your best to ignore the fact that Clinton pardoned people for far worse (your blatantly lame attempt to only focus on some cheese stupidity, while ignoring everything else stands as a perfect example) so once again, I don't see where you have any leg to stand on in whining about the pardon process being any big shocker either.

Your only real "outrage" over any of this, is that this case involves a Republican that you hate, and not a Democrat that you like. That and the media has convinced you its something to get all bent in a wad over.

I did no painting of any sort, I was only in this country for a very short part of Clinton's presidency.

I wish I could find a way to make it clear that I don't care about defending Clinton. If he did all the things you think he did, he should have taken the heat just like I'm dishing out for Bush/Libby now. I would never defend such actions, period.

Is this clear? Are you sure? I do NOT want to repeat all of this again and get into these dumb arguments about precedent, they are really boring.

The reasons I'm redirecting the conversation away from Clinton is because retroactive punishment of some sort is probably not going to happen logistically, and therefore, because all of this is in the past, there is no point talking about the past. Let's talk about today. I don't care what the precedent is, I care about moral correctness, and I don't care what parties are in question.

Right now, in the present, I disagree very strongly with this Bush/Libby fiasco. Therefore, right now, I'm saying that today these actions are unacceptable. If we were to rewind the clock back to Clinton's day and the stuff you described happened, I'd be saying the same things, but we are living in the present.

I sure hope you finally understand where I'm coming from.

And yes, sorry, I meant to address this to Stupendousman and others, for some reason I have confused you two!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
If you have a family, maybe, just maybe you should grow up and find a way to provide for them. Where do you get this notion that it's my responsibility (or anyone else's other than yourself) to provide for your family? I take care of my own family, I expect you to take care of yours. If that's too harsh a reality for you, tough.

If you or your family had some spectacularly unusual handicap that would keep you from being able to provide for yourselves, I'm all in favor of the rest of society pitching in to help you out. THAT's the type of situation that societal charity should exist for. But I'm sick and friggen tired of able bodied people acting like it's too impossible for them to be expected to carry their own weight in this world. To those types, I say: GROW THE F UP ALREADY.

Now, I'm all for health care costing far less for your family -and everyone else's- (and I'd wager you could probably find coverage for less than $10,000 a year, or you could go with what your company provides) but the notion that health care will ever be "free" is just a leftwing fantasy.

Either you'll pay for it directly, have it provided by your employer, or someone else will have to pay for it. The problem with the system you want, is that those other people you want to pay for your health care through massive increases in their taxes and the erosion of their economic freedom, may not be an option THEY can afford.

The way to make health care cost less, is not to turn it into a massive government boondoggle run by corrupt and clueless bureaucrats. We need to eliminate many of the problems in the free market system we have, not replace it with an even worse socialist system.

And the whole approach of just focusing on the false goalpost of "universal coverage" without any attention paid to increasing efficiency, lowering costs, removing the massive costs of frivolous litigation, providing better service, and being sure you're not creating longer wait times and even more problems than are fixed, is backward.


So maybe you could claim that paying your rent or mortgage isn't an option. Or paying for your groceries. Or paying for the clothes you wear. After all, food, shelter and clothing are the most essential requirements. Perhaps we need big government run boondoggles to provide you with all those things as well? Where does this sense of entitlement end?

It was probably my fault for getting into health care, but since there are many other threads about this and this conversation isn't really going anywhere, I'll just let you have the last word here.

I do hope you realize that you are responding to meanings I did not intend. My point was simple: costs are super inflated, and not everybody can afford health insurance and will not be able to afford health insurance for legitimate reasons - particularly those who are self-employed.

Like I said, I probably won't keep this conversation going with you though. Even if I did feel like you were understanding me, there is not a single thing in the world I could say that would change your mind, and the reverse is probably true as well.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The reasons I'm redirecting the conversation away from Clinton is because retroactive punishment of some sort is probably not going to happen logistically, and therefore, because all of this is in the past, there is no point talking about the past. Let's talk about today. I don't care what the precedent is, I care about moral correctness, and I don't care what parties are in question.
Libby has been given the pardon. The President's power to pardon is pretty much without limit and as such, this is something "in the past" that you aren't going to change and aren't going to be able to do anything about. It just ain't going to happen.

If you wish to point to problems with the laws allowing the President to pardon, and you choose to point to Bush as the "problem" with the law, then it's clear that you either lack perspective in the matter or wish to make this a partisan matter.

Right now, in the present, I disagree very strongly with this Bush/Libby fiasco. Therefore, right now, I'm saying that today these actions are unacceptable. If we were to rewind the clock back to Clinton's day and the stuff you described happened, I'd be saying the same things, but we are living in the present.
The guy running for "co-president" who is the front-runner of the Democrat party was an even more egregious user of pardons. Bush will be out of office soon. You won't then have to be aggravated by his actions. They will have been "In the past". YOU CAN do something now to take a stand against the type of behavior you don't like it by fighting against the nomination of the "co-presidency" of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were unapologetic about the quid pro quo selling of pardons they did, and I doubt you're going to get much better if they are rewarded with a second chance to do it again. THAT would show your sincerity in the matter. I won't hold my breath.....
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The guy running for "co-president" who is the front-runner of the Democrat party was an even more egregious user of pardons. Bush will be out of office soon. You won't then have to be aggravated by his actions. They will have been "In the past". YOU CAN do something now to take a stand against the type of behavior you don't like it by fighting against the nomination of the "co-presidency" of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were unapologetic about the quid pro quo selling of pardons they did, and I doubt you're going to get much better if they are rewarded with a second chance to do it again. THAT would show your sincerity in the matter. I won't hold my breath.....
..And once more.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
DakarĘ’
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
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.
It's still just as partisan. "They owe us one" isn't a better stance to take on political corruption than flat out hypocrisy.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by DakarĘ’ View Post
It's still just as partisan. "They owe us one" isn't a better stance to take on political corruption than flat out hypocrisy.
That's not my stance. My stance is fairness and consistency. If a standard is set, then the standard should be followed. I don't care if that standard requires both Republicans and Democrats who do something jail time, or freedom. Simple fairness calls for consistent standards. Arguing otherwise is both illogical and hypocritical.

My stance does not require vengance...only fairness and equal treatment for equal acts, which is the very basis of justice as we know it. If you want to make it a choice between fairness and hypocrisy, you're free to choose hypocrisy. That's not a choice I'M going to make though.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
..And once more.
I'm not the one taking a partisan stance. I'm only giving people the chance to act consistently. Sorry if pointing out the truth about the matter in a way that isn't being seen (the people in question already see the possible flaw in what Bush has done) hurts your feelings.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's not my stance. My stance is fairness and consistency. If a standard is set, then the standard should be followed. I don't care if that standard requires both Republicans and Democrats who do something jail time, or freedom. Simple fairness calls for consistent standards. Arguing otherwise is both illogical and hypocritical.

My stance does not require vengance...only fairness and equal treatment for equal acts, which is the very basis of justice as we know it. If you want to make it a choice between fairness and hypocrisy, you're free to choose hypocrisy. That's not a choice I'M going to make though.

IN other words, precedence...

"It's been this way, so right or wrong it needs to remain this way". Never mind changing something, precedence is king!
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 10:58 PM
 
Or, in other words, once again, somebody else allegedly committed a crime and didn't get punished, so now we can't punish anybody else, because a precedence has been set. Rubbish.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2007, 11:16 PM
 
I think what is happening here is that stupendousman is speaking about legal precedent while we are addressing moral precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm certainly not addressing legality here, but simply the underlying moral fact that it is wrong to give privileged people unfair legal advantages coming from the executive branch such as this, regardless of the circumstance, regardless of the political party.

I'm frankly quite depressed that this is even being debated.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
IN other words, precedence...

"It's been this way, so right or wrong it needs to remain this way". Never mind changing something, precedence is king!
Despite the fact that "precedence" is a concept firmly rooted in the American justice system and is a more than adequate explanation for why current complaints have fallen mostly on deaf ears, I"m not saying that it can't change. In fact, I specifically outlined how/why it might. You've got to look to the future though. You aren't going to change anything retroactively. If you want to do that, you need to look at more than just the current President. Suggesting the problem lies with Bush is a short-sighted view lacking perspective. Especially when looking at what's happened in recent history.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think what is happening here is that stupendousman is speaking about legal precedent while we are addressing moral precedent.
Actually, both.

Legal precedence has been set for what happens to a person in high office who gets caught up in a perjury trap during what can be viewed as a political witch hunt not involving any true crimes. Legal precedence has also been set for what a President can or can't pardon/commute for. It's also been established that a President can even give pardons as part of a "quid pro quo" arrangement and not suffer any real negative ramifications personally. These precedents where all set prior to Bush taking office.

Moral precedent has been set by those who did not condemn certain members of their own party who were guilty of worse, who STILL maintain high approval amongst their own party and are the front runners for the next presidential election. You can't cry about Bush in these matters and still support the Clinton's or maintain silence about what they have done. There's really not a logical basis for such a moral stand. You can't have a credible moral argument in this regard if you attack one whose party you oppose, and remain silent concerning those whose party you support. It doesn't work that way.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Moral precedent has been set by those who did not condemn certain members of their own party who were guilty of worse, who STILL maintain high approval amongst their own party and are the front runners for the next presidential election. You can't cry about Bush in these matters and still support the Clinton's or maintain silence about what they have done. There's really not a logical basis for such a moral stand. You can't have a credible moral argument in this regard if you attack one whose party you oppose, and remain silent concerning those whose party you support. It doesn't work that way.

*Sigh*

Let me be clear, again....

I don't support what Clinton did, if what you say is true. I'm not singling out anybody on a party basis, what I say applies to anybody of any party.

I know it probably absolutely blows your mind that there are those of us who aren't this partisan, but believe me, we do exist.

Is this clear now stupendousman?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 02:03 PM
 
You *are* partisan, besson.

Seriously. I'm as partisan as a person can get - and you never agree with any position I take.

Be proud of your leftwing roots.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
You *are* partisan, besson.

Seriously. I'm as partisan as a person can get - and you never agree with any position I take.

Be proud of your leftwing roots.
I'm sure I agree with you on some issues, it's just the issues we tend to focus on here on MacNN always tend to be the same sorts of things that we happen to disagree on.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 03:56 PM
 
*hug*

Well, we're always agreeing to disagree. I reckon that's a good starting point.

edited: you damned socialist
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2007, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
*hug*

Well, we're always agreeing to disagree. I reckon that's a good starting point.

edited: you damned socialist

Well, I'm totally down with legalizing pot, with allowing gays to marry, I'm not into organized religion and it mixing with politics, I'm pro choice, I'm not pro gun control in the same way that many are, I'm interested in the environment... Do we have any common ground there?

I'm thinking that we at least agree upon pot?


I'm also not for replacing us with robots, and I don't like monkeys. Monkeys are stupid.

I understand that you are very much pro ointment?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,