While I do not agree with all of Clinton's last minute pardons, especially the one for Mr. Rich, I think it only fair to point out so of the more ignomious pardons handed out by Bush, Sr.(We will have time in 4 years to review Dubya's pardons as he leaves office at that time).

Check out this url:

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

There you will find a quick story on the Weinberger pardon and others for their convictions in the iran/contra affair.

And then there was the Bush pardon of a anti-cuban terrorist who blew up a plane killing innocents:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/corr-o26.shtml

And of course let us not forget his pardon of a heroin smuggler, who Bush pardoned 2 days before leaving office:

http://www.ndsn.org/APRIL93/BUSH.html

I think this is good enough for a start. Let the apologists begin speaking.....

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 25, 2001

Answers

Well done FS. I knew you'd scrounge up something. Trade ya two Richie Rich's for one Weinberger.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

ROTFLMAO! Lars, we have very different political views, but I think we understand one another. That is something all too rare on the board, but I really appreciate it.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 25, 2001.

Unusually quiet today. Not a coincidence that I dig up dirt from the other side and they have nothing to say. Okay to Bash Clinton, though.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 25, 2001.

From this in your first post: I think it only fair to point out some of the more ignomious pardons handed out by Bush, Sr. to this in you last post: Not a coincidence that I dig up dirt from the other side and they have nothing to say.I>

I find it interesting that you feel the need to turn this information into an antagonistic "challenge" to "the other side", FS. Guess that's the nature of the beast when discussing politics though huh.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.

Close Italics.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.

Actually, CD, some stuff was being said on other threads about how atrocious Clinton's pardons were, so I posted this to its own thread, and I am just surprised that no one commented. Maybe our political discussions are coming to a halt. I no longer will respond to Flint's posts; he has degenerated into a sycophant.

In one thread today he compared me to Ain't because I posted a lawsuit from the NAACP. Everyone here knows I do not rely on cut and pastes, everyone here, wether they agree with me or not, knows that I think for myself. For him to compare me to a serial cut and paster is totally out of touch with reality.

I am just surprised his ilk have not showed up on this thread.

-- FutureSHock (gray@matter.think), January 25, 2001.

So the question is NOT whether we can picture some of our forum participants doing such things, the question is whether we can imagine any who wouldn't. That's a tough challenge...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 2001.

FS: The above speaks for itself.

I shall endeavor to 'haunt' him with this till his departure.

He is an arrogant ass.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 25, 2001.

One of the more interesting aspects of this forum is the banding of certain ‘personalities’ over time that align with each other across political and moral viewpoints. It would appear that there is a fixed group of individuals that will oppose anything brought forth by ‘Flint’, regardless of content. Just as ‘Future Shock’ has his detractors who will get in his face on any issue he may champion. This can make for great reading but takes away from the legitimacy of the debating process. For example, I’ve always considered those in the Clinton camp to be the lowest form of bottom feeders when in fact some of them could be good people if examined more closely (‘Cherri’ excepted).

-- American (with@high.standards), January 25, 2001.

So you are saying there is no possibility that there is no possibility that I am a good person?
Tell me, just how I am such a terrible person? What have I done in my life that makes me a less then a good person? Do I screw people over? Do I beat my children? Do I lie, cheat and steal?
You don't know a damn thing about me or what kind of a person I am.


-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 25, 2001.

Absolutely amazing. "Ain't" cuts and pastes, FS cuts and pastes, and when I point out that both of them did this, FS gets all bent out of shape because *his* cuts and pastes imply thinking, while those of his enemies obviously do not!

The point is well taken, that some here continue to address the issues, but more and more are taking high offense at individual posters, and want to drive them from the forum. Can we say "EZboard", boys and girls? Let me go on record as saying I'm willing to talk to anyone here, no matter what they write to me or about me. Life is too short for me to go around with a chip on my shoulder, so I can get angry for the fun of it and start holding grudges. Besides, I might miss something entertaining or informative.

Clearly, I could wish everyone a cheerful good morning and FS would take it as a personal insult by reading the by-line first. He calls this "thought". But I'm rather surprised that sumer would decide to let FS do her thinking for her, rather than read and think for herself. For shame, sumer. You must be a Democrat [grin].

Back to the subject of this thread, though, FS is entirely correct. Every outgoing president pardons a long list of people, all of whom were of course found guilty of *something*, or pardons would not be necessary. If FS finds "dirt" because the World Socialist Web Site questions one of Bush's pardons, who are we to question the objectivity of their judgment?

In an important sense, none of these people are innocent, since according to our system they were found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. So pardons always look humane to your supporters, and look like you're freeing common criminals to your enemies. And enemies FS is working very hard to make. So be it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 25, 2001.

Wrong target American. Cherri may not be a dyed in wool lib but she's certainally an honest anti-conservative. Either way she doesn't deserve any crap from you. She's sincere, which is a hell of lot more than anyone can say for Bill Press.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 25, 2001.

Flint:

Your homework assignment is to tell me the percentage of my posts I start that are cut and paste and compare that to Aint. In the name of your beloved logic it is absolutely necessary you post these statistics.

Flint, you earned my enmity. I did not get my nose out of joint about just nothing. We have known each other for over a year, and you took this to the level it has gotten. You tried to belittle my thought processes, and tried to paint me as a cartoon character, a black and white buffoon, and for that I aint lettin ya go. You can think of me what you wish, and it diminishes me none, but when you were wrong, I told you.

And I am still waiting for your answer as to why you debated the merits of a lawsuit without reading it all the way through. You were right that the suit does not represent the findings of law, but you went through days of debate without reading the source material.

This is the fourth time I am mentioning it. You refuse to say you were wrong. Will you?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 25, 2001.

Mr. Carlos, please tell me how you know such things to be true about ‘Cherri’? Have you ever met this person before? Talked to him/her in real time? If not then your perception is worth about the same as mine….squat! I only have her countless posts and anti-Bush ravings to go on and in that regard I’ll hand out all of the crap that I fancy. Bill Press? Quite a reach you have there for an old man. Press makes me laugh with his leftist delivery but that is what he’s paid to do as an entertainer. The persona KA/Cherri is obnoxious at no charge and invites the spears thrown in his/her direction.

-- American (with@high.standards), January 26, 2001.

FS,

My view on this is simple.

Our Constitution gives the President virtually unlimited power to issue pardons.

Clinton used this power. He was perfectly entitled to do so.

If we don't want our Presidents to use this very powerful privilege, we should take it away from them. We'll have to amend the Constitution, but there you go.

I don't care who Clinton pardoned. I don't care who Bush pardoned, who Reagan pardoned, who Carter pardoned, who Ford pardoned ... you get the idea.

Lately, I've come to really respect the Founding Fathers. They were a LOT sharper than most people give them credit for. They HAD to have known that Presidents would use the pardon to help themselves politically. And yet, they granted that power to the office anyway.

In fact, because the President's office is a political office by nature, I rather suspect that they EXPECTED that his/her pardons would be political as well.

If it was OK with Georgie Washington and Little Tom Jefferson, it's alrooot with me. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 26, 2001.

So the question is NOT whether we can picture some of our forum participants doing such things, the question is whether we can imagine any who wouldn't. That's a tough challenge... -- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 2001.

I 'must' be a democrat? ROFL....wouldnt you really like to know.?

As for FS thinking for me, NOPE, I can do that on my own, as scarey as that is for you to imagine.

I think your above original statement says it all. You sterotyped this forum and now have the balls to nit-pik?

Thats pretty damn good.

Gag. Puke.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 26, 2001.

FS:

Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time.

1) "Ain't" cut and pastes much more than you do, and presents far less analysis than you do of what he pastes. This is much to your credit. But this doesn't necessarily mean "Ain't" doesn't think about what he presents. Remember "norm"? I'll be the first to admit I'd rather talk to whoever does the thinking, than someone who merely reproduces someone else's thinking.

2) No, I didn't read your link. I believe I understood the point you were trying to make without needing to plow through any voluminous supporting documentation. I know what the NAACP is claiming, and I know how they are trying to present their case. I could read a *thousand* such case studies without learning anything new about either one. And I repeat that IF they can prove that disenfranchisement was systematic and deliberately aimed at their constituency, then I agree this needs to be corrected and someone needs to be punished. But I promise, next time I will reference your supporting documentation when responding to your point.

Meanwhile, your purpose in starting that thread in the first place was because you, personally, considered it obvious that the NAACP's allegations were fully meritorious. Now you seem to be saying is that if only I (and others) would just ferGawdsake READ the only side of this controversy you chose to present, we couldn't help but agree that you must be entirely correct. And not only do you carefully fail to present any other side of this case, you get insulted when someone else mentions that one even exists.

Hey, I think you're wrong for repeatedly dodging requests that you even consider the role played by the Florida Supreme Court. I believe you sense that the FSC drastically overstepped their proper role and responsibility and precipitated the entire miscarriage of the political system. But I'm not going to advertise how awful you are for this refusal. I understand it, and the fact that you cannot answer me is sufficient.

3) You challenged me to tell you how you were wrong in a specific post. I did so. Your first sentence in that post belittled someone for using a cut and paste technique you sometimes use yourself. I called this a double standard. You might chide "Ain't" for failure to reflect on what he was posting, but not for using a technique you use as well.

Stephen:

I wonder what the founders had in mind with the power to pardon, because I doubt it's being used that way. I think political prisoners weren't all that uncommon in England at the time, and our founders expected a certain amount of that here as well. Maybe they expected a bunch of pardons as the *first* thing a new president did, to free the political prisoners jailed by his predecessor?

This is a topic worth doing some research into. Very interesting.

sumer:

I agree, that was a stupid thing I said. You should notice, though, that it applied to me as well as everyone else. But on second thought, I think I exaggerated much too much. In fact, it may apply only to Cherri, and nobody else. Well, we all make mistakes. Sorry.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 26, 2001.