Blogcritics Comments on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Comment by zingzing on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:24:35 EDT

"it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual." i think you oversimplify. "the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone." and again, you oversimplify. what about torture and suspending habeous corpus is "leav[ing] us the hell alone?" the dems may WISH gov't could solve all our problems, but they also KNOW that it can't. they do what they can do support the people, while the gop likes to support itself (in a selfish way, not a self-sufficient way). which may be where you get confused. the dems want to see the government working for everybody, while the gop is content to see the government manipulated by those who can afford to do so.

Comment by zingzing on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:19:56 EDT

all this being said (my comments, especially 107), i did miss comment #101.

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:15:54 EDT

on the Second Amendment bit..nice try, but i will stand by exactly what i typed, not your veiled implications..which part of "well regulated Militia" do you not comprehend? and how do you think a ban on civilians having assault weapons violated the concept of "well regulated"? and i Quote "the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone." and STILL think you need to show your proof how the fuck do you reconcile "leaving us the hell alone" with the PATRIOT Act? or warrantless wiretapping and violating habeus corpus? until you can give a straight answer to this very fundamental dichotomy, i STILL call bullshit Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:09:35 EDT

as i point out on another thread there are really three levels here. there's what the party members believe, what they write in the platform (which is largely meaningless) and what they actually pass into law. attempting to focus on the platform as an expression of anything other than the desire to get people elected is pure misdirection. on to more specifics. gonzo, if you can't read the 2nd amendment which you just quoted and see how it totally is at odds with the brady bill and the assault weapons ban then there's no rational basis on which to discuss that subject with you. what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway? it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual. i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash. i wouldn't object to that characterization, except that there is more to it than that. there are the right way and the wrong way to line your pockets with cash. i support anyone who will give me the opportunity to earn and keep more money. i would not support those who wish to increase my wealth through a government handout or through the government managing my financial affairs for me. on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration... on the social issues i do agree with the dems, but if you look into their stance on immigration you'll find they probably don't really believe the way you think. their allegiance to unions has made them very protectionist and nativist - more so than many republicans. you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually), of course. that's obvious to anyone. there's still some question of the cost/benefit ratio, but it's certainly excessive spending until there are proven benefits. you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed. something i certainly have to give howard dean credit for. he aggressively stamped out the anti-gun rhetoric once and for all. but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems? again, as i said before, it's philosophy of government. the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone. dave

Comment by zingzing on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:52:13 EDT

what the party members actually do is what the platform really is. other than that, it's just words that get you to vote. that's like saying "judge me for what i say, not what i do!"

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:41:17 EDT

ya gotta be specific, zing...he had raised the point that a lot of the problems with the GoP are not in their Party platform, but stuff the Party has done so i asked what , specifically, in the Dem platform is such a huge threat to our Nation just trying to keep the Record straight Excelsior?

Comment by zingzing on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:37:28 EDT

dave, if you have examples, just write them down for us. we are very curious... this is going on in two different threads. what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway? i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash. on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration... you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually), you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed. but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems? GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES!

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:15:56 EDT

and which of these are in the Dem party platform? some of these are bullshit because they have bi-partisan support, like "the defense of marriage act" how one can equate the brady bill and the assault weapons ban as being any kind of equivalent to tossing aside habeus corpus and the 4th Amendment (warrantless wiretaps) is beyond my at the moment...do explain...is it that you think they somehow violate the Second Amendment, which i will Quote - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." one can easily argue that both of those legally passed laws fall under the "well regulated Militia" portion...they have stood up to legal scrutiny so far, and either way, do explain why you think of them as a "threat" please do show where in the Dem platform (quote and cite) that "socialized medicine" (i'm guessing you mean the position some have towards "Universal Healthcare"..which appear to be different animals, on the surface) "don't ask, don't tell" also had bi-partisan support..and while i'll readily concede it's stupid..and i fail to see this huge "threat" again...you raise some points, but fail to follow the simple Question or even stick to the guidelines of what is being asked..instead giving some things that were bi-partisan, or at best minor bits of stupidity as opposed to the quoted and cited very real damage done by the GoP in the last 6 years Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:04:06 EDT

gonzo, where do you want me to start or stop? the fairness doctrine, the brady bill, the defense of marriage act, socialized medicine, the assault weapons ban, don't ask don't tell. do you not see the theme which unites these issues? dave

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:57 EDT

despite your insults about my memory... why don't you cite your examples, and we will discuss whether your "evils" come close to trashing sections of the Constitution, violating several federal laws and the like i still contend that the Padilla case alone, much less added to the warrantless wiretaps, far outstrips these "evils"... but i'm willing to listen, if/when you deign to show your specific examples, and point out what exactly in the Dem platform you find so egregious Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:29:54 EDT

gonzo, despite your long-term memory problem, the democrats have in fact held office within our mutual lifetime, and they did just as much evil as the gop, but they did much of it openly and were proud of it. i find that more repugnant. dave

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:46:12 EDT

i quote #99 "the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive." more bullshit and spin here while i can agree the GoP party platform does nto include these things, the elected representatives from said political gang have implemented them in the last 6 years...thus making liars of them as well as their other transgressions agains tour Republic.... those that are their Apologists and supporters thus make themselves guilty as enablers i don't give a fuck what someone "advocates"..it's what they actually DO that matters...all else is spin this paragraph - "the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?" is nothing but speculation, unsubstantiated claims and pure partisan bullshit attempting to fear monger with NO basis in objective Reality, for the most part true enough, the Dems are fucked up in many ways, but no where near the dangerous pigfuckers the GoP have shown themselves to be in the last 6 years of rule Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:40:17 EDT

gonzo raises many of the same relatively valid but tediously repeated issues, but does not actually address the point which i made earlier. the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive. the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop? remember, failing something good, we're still picking the lesser of two evils. and as for bliffle's comment: And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal. i certainly don't hate democrats. some of my favorite people and some of my favorite politicians are democrats. but the good individuals who are in the party do not define the party and because i DO believe in the basic principles of liberalism, i cannot support the party and its adherence to a package of beliefs which are inherently oppressive. and i've never claimed to be a conservative. dave

Comment by Zedd on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:41:54 EDT

Clavos, Not only were you in senior mode but you are obviously in jerk mode too.

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:02:16 EDT

i would be all for Paul versus Gravel a MUCH better debate of Issues for our Nation to converse about, and i would wager more solutions would be found for our problems than we are ever going to see from your stated "mainstream" not a single one of those greedhead pigfuckers have an ounce of authenticity between the lot of them like i've said before, rarely is there anyone i would like to vote for, but there's ALWAYS someone to vote against your mileage may vary Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:54:01 EDT

Actually, gonzo, I think you just made a pretty persuasive argument for throwing ALL those "mainstream" fuckers (D & R) out and voting in a radical like Kucinich, Gravel or Paul. At least the next four wouldn't likely be more of the same.

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:47:16 EDT

and i Quote - ""You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens." " which appears, upon Examination, to be hyperbole and a pretty baseless generalization to many people let's see, shall we talk about some Actualized *threats* for examples? warrantless wiretapping, in defiance of the $th Amendment to the Constitution? - even the FBI admits to over 200 cases where it was done purely domestically...NOT involving ANY overseas people or calls...each and every one of those , done without warrant are violations of many federal laws, as well as said portion of the Constitution Jose Padilla - probably a scumbag who deserves to be locked up for a while...but a U.S. citizen, held by this Administration and the Justice department for over 3 years, without being charged with ANY crime, without the recourse of habeus corpus and without ANY of the protections provided to EVERY U.S. citizen i think most would say those are clearly defined threats how about lesser "evils"...big government, wasteful spending..these are the kinds of things many would say are the Democrats domain...but let's take a look at the track record that 6 years of GOP control have wrought between the "department of homeland security" and the Administration's Prescription drug program, government has grown dramatically since 2000...yet our borders are no more secure than they were and due to the problem of the drug program's legislation not even allowing negotiation of prices, as well as the complexity of the program itself...many folks are in just as bad a position as they were previously...some worse...but those pharma corps profits have gone up, eh? so..i have to ask, what "openly advocated programs" exactly ARE such huge threats? and how so? because right now, i just don't see it and don't get me wrong..the Dems are almost as fucked up as the GOP, and have been at least as bad at times in the past... but toss a pre-emptive war sold to the public under false pretenses (in some respects like what JFK and LBJ did with Nam), and scandals/corruption that makes Nixon look ethical in retrospect... what argument could there possibly be that the Dems are not currently a much lesser threat to have in office than the GOP? Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:49:46 EDT

I have no idea what you were attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to say, Zedd. However, I did decipher enough to respond to you that I am a teetotaler; i don't drink Jameson or any other alcoholI

Comment by Zedd on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:38:01 EDT

Clavos #88 This was dealt with thoroughly about six months back on this very blog sight. I think you participated in the discussion. Feeling a little senior today or doth though also like the many amongst us bathe frequently the sweet bosom of the spirits thus echoing, with predictability (in true form, like the creature you've been since your weenin), In Jameson Veritas? Sorry I'm still in Pirates of the Caribbean mode hence the long overly stated sample of free verse :o)

Comment by bliffle on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:13:34 EDT

This is the funniest notion I've seen on BC: "You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens. Dave" And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal.

Comment by John Bambenek on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 08:23:13 EDT

For everyone who thinks I'm whitewashing here, I'd wish they'd actually read the *whole* article...

Comment by Arch Conservative on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 07:59:57 EDT

"You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens." Dave........ That one paragraph is the truest, most worthwhile, topical, pertinent bit of writing I have EVER seen on Blogcritics. Thank you. Oh and I really don't get what all of the fuss the left is making over this Libby deal considering how they didn't utter a peep when Clinton was busy pardoning his own brother for cocaine trafficking and auctioning off pardons to countless criminals who happened to be either friends or family members of those who could gave the Clintons very sizeable political donations. The icing on the cake is Slick Willie actually going on national TV and critisizing Bush over the libby commutation. I guess billy-boy can't help himself. The need to drop in every now and then and remind us all of what a world class scumbag he is is to powerful and compulsive for him to control.

Comment by gonzo marx on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 06:53:29 EDT

more and more bullshit... this has nothing to do with Clinton, and anyone trying to say differently is just pure spin and attempted distraction...just because someone else was an asshole and did some fucked up shit, does NOT excuse another person from doing it... when did the GOP become so soft on crime? try and keep this Issue on topic... a member of the Administration lied to the FBI and a grand jury during an investigation being held by an appointee of the Administration found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying to the FBI, perjury to a grand jury, obstruction of justice now, when it appears that some pressure could be put on the convicted felon to cut a deal and talk rather than going to prison, the President...without consulting the Justice department, commutes the sentence, going against his own Justice department guidelines, to remove any possibility of said pressure being utilized... many a lawyer is going to be quoting the President on this one, trying to get their clients off of jail time due to "past service".."hardship to their family" all all the rest of the shit W spewed as *reasoning* oh yeah..side note..as for Marc Rich, the bastard should have done his time, but it looks like his lawyer did well to con Clinton into a pardon... his lawyer was Scooter Libby plenty more, but no one is going to convince anyone, no matter the facts that are laid out before them more and more as time goes on, one thing is shown clearly...W and his administration makes Nixon look ethical after all, Nixon didn't pardon Liddy, Haldeman, Erlichman and the rest, and resigned for the good of the nation... anyone want to bet that on W's last days, good olde Scooter gets a full pardon? the Tao of D'oh nuff said... Excelsior!

Comment by Clavos on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 01:47:31 EDT

Here's an interesting, on-topic excerpt from an LA Times editorial: "With the sand running out on his administration, President Clinton hustled through pardons for 141 people and commutations for 36 more. Among those who received pardons were 27 men and women convicted of drug crimes, deserters from the military, a former member of the Clinton Cabinet who pleaded guilty to making false statements to authorities, and various perjurers and obstructionists. Clinton's half-brother walked away that day with a clean record, as did Patty Hearst and financier Marc Rich — at the time a fugitive from justice on charges of violating the embargo against trade with Iran, tax evasion and other unsavory deeds. Clinton's pardons were particularly offensive because they were issued just as his presidency ended, so there was no way for him to be held accountable for his misuse of power." (emphasis added) Res ipsa loquitur.

Comment by RePo on What was President Bush Thinking in Commuting Libby's Sentence?

Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:49:13 EDT

seems like his punishment is still harsher than sandy berger's or clinton's. Would you like a side of double standard with that sandwich?