Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
You have described the current Democratic tactics exactly. Wait for the open hand, get it into your liar, and then BITE IT!
Clinton should never have Pardoned Marc Rich...it was wrong , Wrong WRONG !!!!
- Thread starter Siren
- Start date
Re: Nope...it is just there is no point in having a discussions with radicals...
In this case I am trying to gain some insight into the following scenario which frankly baffles me completely.
During 8 years in office, Clinton committed numerous acts which were blatantly criminal. Among them were perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice and treason. He also orchestrated numerous instances of character assassination against those who demonstrated the temerity to bring forth evidence of his criminal and otherwise egregious behavior. He caused to be initiated IRS audits of people and institutions who opposed him or had the temerity to investigate his questionable to criminal actions.
None of these acts were within his legitimate authority in any fashion whatsoever. Yet he was defended staunchly as a great president, as doing a fabulous job as president and being the great American leader when not one of those things was ever true. Nothing of his behavior was reproachable nor questionable.
Now, when he is out of office, suddenly there is this tremendous outrage over the pardons he granted at the last minute.
Now I do agree that the pardons are "questionable" as has been so charitably put. Based on the man's demonstrated character for the past 8 years, I have no doubt that many of the pardons were either quid pro quo or cash on the barrelhead transactions.
Nonetheless, the pardons, unlike his other egregious violations of law and principles, were within his legitimate Constitutional authority.
So my question is and always has been, why the outrage over this "questionable" activity when there was tolerance, acceptance, support and defense of blatant and obvious criminal behavior.
Outrage over exercise of legitimate authority (however dishonest and inappropriate it may have been) following approval of criminal behavior to me is the quintessence of irrational arrogance. It has the appearance of the utmost disingenuous effort to put forth some semblance of righteousness as if to placate those against whom the Liberals have railed for years while condoning and supporting crimes by saying, "See, we do agree with you. These pardons are abominable!".
If the pardons are so abominable, why wasn't the criminal behaviors? This dichotomy is what has me baffled.
I am not trying to "hit you over the head" because we disagree on something. I have always respected anyone's right to disagree although I may not respect the position they take in disagreement.Siren said:
In this case I am trying to gain some insight into the following scenario which frankly baffles me completely.
During 8 years in office, Clinton committed numerous acts which were blatantly criminal. Among them were perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice and treason. He also orchestrated numerous instances of character assassination against those who demonstrated the temerity to bring forth evidence of his criminal and otherwise egregious behavior. He caused to be initiated IRS audits of people and institutions who opposed him or had the temerity to investigate his questionable to criminal actions.
None of these acts were within his legitimate authority in any fashion whatsoever. Yet he was defended staunchly as a great president, as doing a fabulous job as president and being the great American leader when not one of those things was ever true. Nothing of his behavior was reproachable nor questionable.
Now, when he is out of office, suddenly there is this tremendous outrage over the pardons he granted at the last minute.
Now I do agree that the pardons are "questionable" as has been so charitably put. Based on the man's demonstrated character for the past 8 years, I have no doubt that many of the pardons were either quid pro quo or cash on the barrelhead transactions.
Nonetheless, the pardons, unlike his other egregious violations of law and principles, were within his legitimate Constitutional authority.
So my question is and always has been, why the outrage over this "questionable" activity when there was tolerance, acceptance, support and defense of blatant and obvious criminal behavior.
Outrage over exercise of legitimate authority (however dishonest and inappropriate it may have been) following approval of criminal behavior to me is the quintessence of irrational arrogance. It has the appearance of the utmost disingenuous effort to put forth some semblance of righteousness as if to placate those against whom the Liberals have railed for years while condoning and supporting crimes by saying, "See, we do agree with you. These pardons are abominable!".
If the pardons are so abominable, why wasn't the criminal behaviors? This dichotomy is what has me baffled.
