Do Liberals think they are above the Law?

[SkinWalker]

I'd have to care a bit more about politics to be willing to debate it. The justice system did it's job. That's good enough for me.

[Achilles]

I agree that the court system did it's job, but I don't know that justice was served. Even if I did accept that it was all Libby, all the time his sentence was commuted. Probation and a (very hefty) fine hardly seem like retribution for putting a woman's life in danger and ruining her career. Not to mention breaking the law.

[Totenkopf]

That's fine skin. It also reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

[SkinWalker]

That's fine skin. It also reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

 

LOL... I'm sure you'll find someone here that wants to debate it with you. I just don't like politics enough to both with it. Good luck with it. Sounds like a shadow-boxing match to me, though.

[Totenkopf]

I don't believe there's anything to debate here, though. I took you at your word that you don't want to "debate" politics, especially when you're wrong.

[GarfieldJL]

LOL... I'm sure you'll find someone here that wants to debate it with you. I just don't like politics enough to both with it. Good luck with it. Sounds like a shadow-boxing match to me, though.

 

No, you just got caught by your own words, admit it you lost the argument.

 

I don't believe there's anything to debate here, though. I took you at your word that you don't want to "debate" politics, especially when you're wrong.

 

Amen.

[SkinWalker]

LOL. If it means that much to you.... knock yourself out. I'm just not that fanatical about politics to be bothered.

[Darth Avlectus]

Saints are fictive designations created by the superstitious. I used no such moniker nor do I believe your current President is without fault.

 

Lolwut? I thought we were all Americans?

 

Ironic. I suppose there is no true American like there's no true scottsman either.

 

Again, more preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data which are supportive.

Again, preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data...

 

Yes, yes. I'm sure you're just totally innocent of that charge, yourself.

 

LOL. If it means that much to you.... knock yourself out. I'm just not that fanatical about politics to be bothered.

...unless it's something you know you can win, then I noticed you just pour it on. Picking your shots, as it were.

[SkinWalker]

Yes, yes. I'm sure you're just totally innocent of that charge, yourself.

 

If you'd care to demonstrate this successfully, I'm ready and willing to revise whatever conclusion I've arrived at in the face of evidence. If not, would you simply be baiting?....

 

...unless it's something you know you can win, then I noticed you just pour it on. Picking your shots, as it were.

 

Or, perhaps I truly detest politics enough to not care and, thus, couldn't be bothered. I doubt I can improve upon the results of what the independent prosecutor already demonstrated, nor am I qualified to think so. More baiting?....

[GarfieldJL]

If you'd care to demonstrate this successfully, I'm ready and willing to revise whatever conclusion I've arrived at in the face of evidence. If not, would you simply be baiting?....

 

In all honesty SkinWalker, you routinely are guilty of it whenever religion enters the topic you go on an attack to bash people whom are religious and then you act surprised that people like myself are offended.

 

 

Or, perhaps I truly detest politics enough to not care and, thus, couldn't be bothered. I doubt I can improve upon the results of what the independent prosecutor already demonstrated, nor am I qualified to think so. More baiting?....

 

Considering the Independent Prosecutor knew that Libby wasn't the leaker, also knew Rove didn't have anything to do with it, and went on a witchhunt anyways, and you consider that it couldn't have been improved upon gives me great doubts as to your objectivity.

 

If the Prosecutor knew whom actually leaked the info and it wasn't the person he was going after, if he was ethical or objective at all he would dropped the case against Libby. Instead he badgered Libby to the point he could charge Libby for perjury, because Libby didn't recall some things that had occurred monthes prior correctly.

 

In your own post where you accuse GTA of baiting you, you prove that GTA is telling the truth.

[Achilles]

Lolwut? I thought we were all Americans?

I wonder how people born and raised in other countries feel about this. But perhaps they simply didn't get the memo.

[SkinWalker]

In all honesty SkinWalker, you routinely are guilty of it whenever religion enters the topic you go on an attack to bash people whom are religious and then you act surprised that people like myself are offended.

 

Quite the contrary. I'm very open to revising my conclusions regarding religion. The religious need only demonstrate where my conclusions are incorrect and why. If their arguments are rational and sound, what choice would I have but to revise. This attitude is hardly consistent with having a preconceived conclusion. Furthermore, I was once a believer in the Christian god and religious superstition. In the face of rational thought and evidence, I've revised my conclusion to now take the position of an agnostic-atheist.

 

But, please. Cite the place I've demonstrated a preconceived conclusion to which I'm only willing to see that data which are supportive. The closest thing you might be able to come to is my assertion that Cheney's office and Libby in particular was responsible for the treasonous act of revealing the identity of an intelligence asset. For this, I admit to being trusting of the Justice system in place but I'm willing to revise should evidence sufficient enough to sway that system the other way be presented. I defer to the legal system and the special prosecutor, who are experts in the field. I'm not.

[GarfieldJL]

Quite the contrary. I'm very open to revising my conclusions regarding religion.

 

In a pig's eye!

 

But, please. Cite the place I've demonstrated a preconceived conclusion to which I'm only willing to see that data which are supportive. The closest thing you might be able to come to is my assertion that Cheney's office and Libby in particular was responsible for the treasonous act of revealing the identity of an intelligence asset. For this, I admit to being trusting of the Justice system in place but I'm willing to revise should evidence sufficient enough to sway that system the other way be presented. I defer to the legal system and the special prosecutor, who are experts in the field. I'm not.

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2613120&postcount=34

 

The same post I quoted earlier in this thread.

[SkinWalker]

Which shows that I'm both willing to revise my position, should a qualified person present better evidence that that which I've already observed, and that you're not very good at rational discussions.

 

I have no preconceived conclusions about Libby or Cheney. The preponderance of evidence presented appears weighted against them, but should different evidence be shown by a qualified person(s), I'm willing to revise my position.

 

So, again, I ask that you support your apparently erroneous and fallacious (tu quoque) contention.

[Totenkopf]

QFE.

 

It's a bipartisan problem.

 

And each side will always see the media as ignoring the worst outrages of their opponents.

 

Now that Democrats (AKA: liberals) have the power, the Limbaugh-ites will have a field-day for the next 4 years (at least) working themselves into a froth over every little infraction (or perceived infraction) in a way unseen since the height of the Clinton administration. Which, I seem to remember, most of his administration was often accused of similar issues (all the way up to murder) by the usual suspects.

 

I don't pay super-close attention to the news that much these days, and I certainly don't subscribe to conservative-leaning media (my souces for current info being mostly: PBS, Slate, and the Boston Globe,) but I HAVE heard all about the tax issues with some of the Obama cabinet members.

 

So therefore: If I know something about it, then some "liberal mainstream media" outlets must have covered it at some point.

 

The insistence from the O.P. that he might be the only one paying attention to it doesn't quite pan out. (It could be that most people just don't care as much about it as you do, Gar. That might be far more difficult to refute.)

 

Should they be kicked out of the cabinet? Eh... I personally don't think so. If we were to wait for someone who has been around a long time in the political sphere, and experienced enough to be an effective senior cabinet member who has absolutely NO squirrely marks in their personal, business, or political history,.. then I fully expect the entire term would pass by with none of the seats ever being filled.

 

I completely agree that it's a bipartisan problem. Whether it was Clinton commiting perjury or Ted Stevens failing to report gifts (gotta love his "it's not a crime unless you intended to commit a crime" defense. I think that only works with mortal sins in the Catholic Church. ) I do however slightly disagree with your point about govt appointees. It's part of the reason there's a vetting process. It's highly ironic that the head of the IRS is now widely known for being a dishonest tax cheat. Minor squirrely marks might be no big deal as no one is perfect, but those with major issues that the rest of us would get screwed for should have the common decency to step aside (preferably before it becomes public).

[edlib]

Perhaps... but the next person appointed will also have background issues that if somebody wishes to make a federal case about, they will.

 

I just don't think you can get that far along in public life without having SOME skeletons in the closet.

 

Maybe the person's black marks shouldn't be in the same field they are being appointed for... but if that's somebody's field of expertise, then they will have spent a lot of time in it... and made a lot of mistakes and have produced a lot of wreckage along the way.

 

There's is nobody capable of doing a cabinet level job with a totally clean record.

 

This current round of folks should have been vetted better... but there's also the theory of "to catch a thief..."

 

After all: who knows all the ways of a tax cheat better than: a tax cheat? You want to track down and catch people doing it? Then you had better have somebody who has already gotten away with it on your side.

 

 

I'm being facetious, of course... but I don't think that someone who has been around long enough to be expert-level enough for the cabinet will ever be truly spotless. All the vetting in the world with never find that perfect human.

 

People who clearly break the law should be punished by it (at whatever level of government they exist at.)

 

But it was mainly all the pointless partisan griping and trying to smear the other side's choices for appointees for alleged shady dealings and questionable moral choices (that can't be proven and/or prosecuted in court) that I was really trying to get at.

[Totenkopf]

Well, the only caveat I'd add to that is that is there really no one else qualified or is the person doing the picking casting a wide enough net to pick a largely noncontroversial candidate? When you think about the fact that candidates have anywhere from a minimum of days to as much as the beggining of the election campaigns to start looking for such candidates, it's a little hard to say..."geez, we couldn't really find someone else."

[edlib]

Fair enough.

[GarfieldJL]

Which shows that I'm both willing to revise my position, should a qualified person present better evidence that that which I've already observed, and that you're not very good at rational discussions.

 

I have no preconceived conclusions about Libby or Cheney. The preponderance of evidence presented appears weighted against them, but should different evidence be shown by a qualified person(s), I'm willing to revise my position.

 

So, again, I ask that you support your apparently erroneous and fallacious (tu quoque) contention.

 

Just can it Skin, you're probably not fooling anyone because I already posted proof from a far left Newspaper that had every motive to try to frame Bush for flying the planes into the World Trade Center. And even they had to admit that the leak wasn't from Rove, Cheney, nor was it from Libby. It was from some guy under Powell. The fact is the prosecutor knew that and he still went after Libby.

 

Seriously, if acting like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are your ideas of bipartisanship I'd really be afraid to see your definition of when the left is partisan.

 

Well, the only caveat I'd add to that is that is there really no one else qualified or is the person doing the picking casting a wide enough net to pick a largely noncontroversial candidate? When you think about the fact that candidates have anywhere from a minimum of days to as much as the beggining of the election campaigns to start looking for such candidates, it's a little hard to say..."geez, we couldn't really find someone else."

 

I'll add to that and say that the argument doesn't fly when most of his appointments have a history of not paying their taxes and/or have a record of being far-left radicals.

[SkinWalker]

Yawn.

[GarfieldJL]

Yawn.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?_r=1

[SkinWalker]

Well then. See. I revise my position. I no longer agree with the conclusion that Libby was the leak. Armitage admits he was the traitor. Its a good thing he didn't work for the Bush administration or anything....

 

By the way, this will be the only time I'll tolerate simply posting a link. This isn't a blog. So if you (or anyone else) posts just a link without commentary or opinion and it disappears....

[edlib]

... have a record of being far-left radicals.

Proving my point exactly.

 

After eight years of grumbling about Bush appointing hawkish Neo-Con folks to key administration positions; and judges who are so socially conservative that they made Pat Buchanan look like Noam Chomsky; and then being told by my more right-wing associates: "Well, he's the President. That's his prerogative. He gets to appoint whoever he wants. You don't have to like it..." it's truly nice to see the other side squirming for a change.

 

Like I said: if and when it's proven that they really did break the law, then they should be punished.

 

Otherwise: it's all just partisan griping.

 

It's not exactly like he's ever likely to appoint a lot of folks who see things your way and make you happy. I don't foresee a lot of lifetime Republican party faithful ever getting ushered into key positions. A liberal Dem president is most likely to (surprise, surprise!) appoint other liberal Democrats.

 

But again: That's his gig.

 

Anyway: The country will survive.

[GarfieldJL]

Well then. See. I revise my position. I no longer agree with the conclusion that Libby was the leak. Armitage admits he was the traitor. Its a good thing he didn't work for the Bush administration or anything....

 

By the way, this will be the only time I'll tolerate simply posting a link. This isn't a blog. So if you (or anyone else) posts just a link without commentary or opinion and it disappears....

 

I had posted that link before with a commentary, but you had apparently missed it the last time, which is the only reason why I posted it by itself.

 

@edlib

 

Contrary to what the mainstream media would like people to believe, many of the Bush appointees were not far-right. And Bush's appointees actually did pay their taxes.

[edlib]

Enough of them were, though.

 

At least: far more than I ever wanted to see appointed, anyway.

 

And if the taxes thing is really getting to you that much: do something about it!

 

Contact your representatives to bring prosecution against them. Don't expect the Obama administration to volunteer to do it themselves. That's how the system works.

 

Complaining about it on an internet forum (where most of the folks here don't share your political stance) is unlikely to stir action.

 

But I'm certain that even if the president dismissed his entire cabinet today, and replaced them with an entirely new crop tomorrow, you would still manage find fault with most if not all of them.

 

Different faults, perhaps... but I'm sure they are still all going to seem "radical" to you. Just like most of Bush's appointees seemed like right-wing radicals to me.