Bill Clintons last day pardons

[Caffeine Socialism]

Ah, yes, Dubya's prestigious service record. His daddy got him in ahead of 12,000 other men, many of whom probably died in Vietnam, and he was AWOL for 22 months. That's about 2 years. There's no good reason to skip military service that doesn't even do anything. Unless he was busy getting coked up and drunk off his bottom (stupid censoring).   You can never interrupt someone engaging in those activities. Woo hoo for our party pre$ident.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
Ah, yes, Dubya's prestigious service record. His daddy got him in ahead of 12,000 other men, many of whom probably died in Vietnam, and he was AWOL for 22 months. That's about 2 years. There's no good reason to skip military service that doesn't even do anything. Unless he was busy getting coked up and drunk off his bottom (stupid censoring).   You can never interrupt someone engaging in those activities. Woo hoo for our party pre$ident.

Notice how quiet Gunny is, though.

But Gunny claims he isn't obsessed about Clinton.

 

[Job_38]

Funny how you guys have changed the subject and have not addressed anything about WHY CLinton gave these men pardons, who one, forgot who, was being chased in a very long manhunt for many years. These were all in ONE day, yet you find nothing strange about it. Is this an obession? With Clinton? No. With trying to tell people things about him that you want to ignore, yes.

Please give me the sources of info please.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Job_38
Funny how you guys have changed the subject and have not addressed anything about WHY CLinton gave these men pardons,

Have you addressed all the pardons that Bush Sr. gave? And to the kinds of people who would traded arms for hostages?

No, I didn't think so.

The sources for this have already been posted.  Read more carefully.

 

 

[Job_38]

Of course I have not addressed them, because I inteneded this to be about Clinton. Look at the subject of this thread.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Job_38
Of course I have not addressed them, because I inteneded this to be about Clinton. Look at the subject of this thread.

Translation:  you intended to focus on Clinton, while ignoring greater faults of Bush Sr. 

Iran-Contra was a serious breach of foreign policy, and trading arms for hostages far outweighs any pardons for bounced checks.  Yet Bush pardoned those people.

So considering that you appear to be focusing on Clinton, while ignoring the larger faults of Bush, why should anyone take you seriously?

And if you weren't planning on addressing Bush's record of pardons, why did you ask for sources in your last post?

Are you sure you're up to the task here?

 

[Starscream]

Is this an obession? With Clinton? No. With trying to tell people things about him that you want to ignore, yes.

I don't see anyone here ignoring the pardons of Clinton, we just wish to invite you to take the speck out of your own political party's eye before you try to remove the log from the eyes of others.  The hypocrisy of some conservatives gets a liitle sickening after a while.

Just wait and see which pardons Bush Jr. grants himself and his well to do buddies.  Just wait.

Why do think Bush has no desire to stop this pardon business?  He's likely going to need a couple of 'get out of jail free' cards before his 4 years are up.

 

[Morat]

  It's very simple. You want us to lambast Clinton for giving these pardons. Why? Because they were given to criminals. (Well, duh).

  So we point out that what Clinton did wasn't any different than any other President, and much better than the one before him (many of whose pardons were to protect himself from investigation).

  You seem to want to discuss the abuses of the system. So why are you blaming us for focusing on some of the more egregious examples of abuse?

 

 

[Starscream]

Are you sure you're up to the task here?

My experience on these forums tells me that at this point you'll receive a dismissive post with three key features:

1)  An ad-hom (i.e. "You liberals are something else!")

2)  An indication that the poster will not speak to you anymore (i.e. "If all you want to do is bash Bush and ingore Clinton, then FINE!  I'm done talking to you!")

3)  Since we are talking Clinton, there just *must* be a reference to his sexual activities (because we all know conseratives never cheat on their wives). 

 

[eldermike]

You liberals!, (1) how dare you defend that pervert, (3) how can anyone even talk to you people. (1)

I thought you had the order wrong. <grin>

Blessings

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by Starscream


My experience on these forums tells me that at this point you'll receive a dismissive post with three key features:

1)&nbsp; An ad-hom (i.e. "You liberals are something else!")

2)&nbsp; An indication that the poster will not speak to you anymore (i.e. "If all you want to do is bash Bush and ingore Clinton, then FINE!&nbsp; I'm done talking to you!")

3)&nbsp; Since we are talking Clinton, there just *must* be a reference to his sexual activities (because we all&nbsp;know conseratives never cheat on their&nbsp;wives).&nbsp; [/B]

&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You liberals! You guys suck! You are all gays!

&nbsp;Ok, if you want to live in you left wing fantasy world, go ahead! Just don't drag the rest of us down with you.

Well just look at what he spent his time doing, he probaly didn't even have time for his real jo.b

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[Starscream]

I knew it!

 

[Job_38]

Happy to fufil a phropecy

 

[Brimshack]

Flaming Lie-bral nonsense! There is no point in talking with any of you guys, not when you defend that pervert!

(. . . it looked like fun, I just had to try it.)

Okay, there are at least two ways to construct the meaning of this thread; 1) as a debate about whether or not Clinton was a corrupt president, and 2) as a debate about whether or not Clinton's presidency brought an unusual degree of corruption to the presidency. There are plenty of indications that the conservatives here would make both assertions. I have already conceded that I think Clinton was corrput, and if that is as far as you ever intended this thread to go, then I will happily check out of it. If, however, anyone here wishes to argue that Clinton was unusually corrupt or that his Presidency has brought us to new depths, then I would say that all the dirt on Bush, etc. is directly relevant to such a thesis, and that the evidence on Republican corruption is more than sufficient to negate it.

 

[Susan]

hehehehehe

Seriously though, I am a Bush fan except for the Enron mess. . .I just thought this was funny.

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by Sauron


Notice how quiet Gunny is, though.

I served my country at a time of war with honor and valor. I stated my thoughts on Clinton's draft dodger status and PROTESTING THE VIETNAM WAR ON FOREIGN SOIL.

"Better to speak few words and thought a fool then to speak many and prove it so"


GySgt

 

[Brimshack]

I think the point is that Clinton's draft dodger status is hardly unique. The fact that he protested Vietnam on foreign soil is distasteful to say the least, but that is a political issue, perhaps even a voting issue as they say (i.e. a sufficient reason to vote against him). It isn't entirely cricket to call Clinton a draft dodger and yet overlook so many Republicans that have done just as much to avoid serving in combat.

 

[Brimshack]

I should add that the previous comment is intended to question only the fairness of this one aspect of your politics Gunny. I'm am certainly not trying to call your service into question, nor that of your overall integrity. I just think the Clinton-bashing is a little selective; that's all.

Goodnight.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

All I can say is:

It depends what your definitions of is is.

Yup he sure was a peice of work that Clinton. I don't see how anyone could trust the guy. You can go around bad mouthing Bush and changing the subjects but that doesn't make Clinton any better.

 

[Starscream]

I don't see how anyone could trust the guy.

I haven't trusted any of our recent presidents, Republican or Democrats.

(but I do think the Dems are the lesser of the two evils - oh how I wish there were other choices)