English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't see the rationale there....

How do you excuse one bad deed by mentioning another bad deed committed by another person ?

By that logic, all the guilty are innocent by virtue of someone elses guilt ? So if everyone is guilty of something, then nobody is guilty of anything, and nobody should ever be held accountable ?

On the issue of commuting Libby's sentence..it seems the only defense being presented for Bush, is that "Clinton pardoned people !".....that just doesn't make any sense to me. If Bush lies about something, we get more of the same...."Clinton lied about Monica !"

Seems we have alot of die hard conservatives that need to grow up.

2007-07-06 03:58:39 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Let me point out one thing here..

I was too young to be involved with politics when Clinton was president....so to say that i'm a hypocrite for not being pisssed off about something he did 8 years ago is ridiculous. I didn't vote for Clinton....he's not my "boi".....I'm not even a democrat. So when you post that "people like me" or "you people" are hypocrites, understand that in my view, the performance of Clinton and Bush are two completely seperate issues. So I cannot understand why, when I say something about Bush, I immediately get hammered with opinions on Clinton. To me that is just arbitrary and incoherent rehtoric.

Put yourself in my shoes...I was 20 when Clinton left office...I couldn't even buy a beer. I don't give a sh!tt what he did while he was in office, because that is the past and he is not the current president.

2007-07-06 04:12:49 · update #1

STOP CALLING ME A LIBERAL...

HAVING A DISSENTING VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A LIBERAL. I VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000, BUT NOT 2004 DUE TO PERFORMANCE ISSUES.....I'M A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN !!!!!

THIS YEAR I'M SWITCHING MY CARD TO INDEPENDANT BECAUSE OF THIS TYPE OF BS.

IT'S APPARENT TO ME NOW THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEMOCRAT AND A REPUBLICAN ANYMORE.....EVERYONE IS NOW EITHER A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. AND NO SUCH THING AS A MODERATE....WE CAN'T TOLERATE THAT KIND OF NORMALCY CAN WE !?

2007-07-06 04:21:28 · update #2

24 answers

I find that to be a commonality among many here. People defend Democrats by pointing out Republican bad behavior and the opposite is also true. Bad behavior is bad behavior and shouldn't be defended by pointing out other bad behavior.

2007-07-06 04:02:13 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 4 0

Because Clinton sucked as a president (well technically it was Monica who sucked haha).
It's the "if everyone jumped off a bridge would you to" that your parents would use on you when you said that everybody was going to the mall or to this place or that when you were younger (You know you said that every child does at some point....."But Jimmy's parents are letting him....")
Bush is only seeking to justify why he vacated Libbys sentence because of what every president has done. They've pardoned or given special favors to their friends who have gotten into trouble (or in the case of Clinton he let a rich fat cat off the hook after said fat cat gave Hilary a nice big contribution to her senatorial campaign). This guy Clinton pardoned didn't have the balls to set foot in America and hid out in his mansion in another country until slick willie set him free.
So what you're saying is that (for every case that ever comes up to court there has been a guideline or a case to set a precedent for that crime case before it)... why should there be certain sentences for some crimes? (he person 1 got life for murder while person 2 gets 15 years? they both commited murder therefore according to you they should all recieve the same sentence). You can't be more guilty of a crime than another person....speeding for instance 2 people were clocked for speeding one for 10 mph over and one for 20....both are just as guilty so they should pay the same penalty right? Bush was within his power as president to vacate Libbys sentence and he chose to do so, why are people so upset is my question? The next president will do the same thing as the previous presidents have before Bush...all the Democrats need to get over Bush exercising his rightful power.
And what you're saying is that after the next election you won't give a crap about what Bush did because it will all be in the past? Whether you were 20 or 12 when Clinton left office you were still an american were you not? Then Clintons actions while in office did affect you even if you were too young to vote. I was 14 when Nixon resigned and supported Fords pardoning him a few months later. To me Nixon was probably the best president I've ever lived under. At least he kept his campaign promises (getting our boys home from Vietnam and opening the door to China were two of them) unlike all the others who just say what they think the most voters want to hear to get elected.

2007-07-06 04:19:22 · answer #2 · answered by Goofy 3 · 0 1

I'm sure they are just showing you that Clinton has done the same if not worse things than Bush. You mentioned the Libby case. It is the privilege of a president to pardon people. Bush pardoned one that I know of while it's history that Clinton pardoned 459 criminals and you didn't mention a single one of them. Bush didn't lie and you can't prove he did but Clinton lied to Congress and the Supreme Court and that got him impeached. As for the conservatives that need to grow up, you'd better look in the mirror at the liberal that needs to grow up. You are just as bad as they are.

I'm an Independent and I don't side with one party or the other cause I can think for myself. You hard core liberals and the hard core conservatives have a lot in common you're both just too stuck up to admit it.

2007-07-06 04:14:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Answer: Because Dems have Clinton Derangement Syndrome ( The opposite of BDS ) and think he is the baby Jesus of American politics.
Republicans' logic is: If Clinton was so wonderful, and Bush is demonstrably better, then how can Bush be the Anti-Christ?

Bush is an accused liar; Clinton is an indicted one.
Clinton's economy was good; Bush's is the best ever.
Clinton had low unemployment; Bush has record low.
Minority home ownership was static in the Clinton years;
Bush years see minority home ownership at record high.
Clinton pardoned over 450 cronies for various sordid felonies;
Bush pardoned Clinton.
Clinton put 2 loonies on the Supreme Court who voted to let the Government seize your property and sell it to fatcat real estate speculators; Bush named 2 justices who oppose that constitutional abomination.
Clinton gave Saddam an eight-year pass; Bush had Saddam and his butcherous sons killed.

Its not about justifying bad behavior with bad behavior; its simply pointing out blatant, unequivocal double-standards used by partisan leftists.
Partisans on both sides will never see "their guy" as being bad, i.e. "Clinton was great, and he made a few mistakes." "Bush is great, and he has made a few mistakes." But to be fair, Bush IS criticized by his own party much more than Clinton was, even during the impeachment, so how are Republicans viewed as partisan hacks toeing the party line?

2007-07-06 04:21:42 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 0 2

Amen!!!!! This is exactly what I was thinking!! I hate it when I ask a question like:

"Why didn't Bush hold any meetings on bin Laden prior to 9/11 despite there being many warnings from the CIA that bin Laden is determined to attack the U.S.?"

And the response I get is:

"Clinton didn't do anything to get bin Laden."

First of all, that is not answering my question.

Second of all, Clinton DID hold meetings on bin Laden. Clinton wanted to overthrow the Taliban and take out bin Laden but the entire U.S. government was against him at the time. However, the truth is, Clinton held meetings on bin Laden and also referred to bin Laden as a threat in speeches that he gave as President. On the other hand, Bush held NO meetings on bin Laden prior to 9/11. Bush didn't mention bin Laden's name even once prior to 9/11. Instead, ever since day one that he took office, he started planning a takeover of Iraq.

Thirdly, I am NOT a Democrat. I support lower taxes and free trade.

2007-07-06 04:26:56 · answer #5 · answered by RockiesFan 2 · 1 1

Its as simple as their mind is .

When people see Johnny on the playground pull Mary's hair and then Johnny goes to the principles office and gets a paddling everyone knows the story .
Then Tommy is on the play ground and pulls Jennifer's hair but he does it behind the fence where no one can see and then he sticks gum under his desk and a thumb tack on the teachers chair and blames Johnny for it all . Everyone knows Johnny was guilty in the past so everyone just agrees because Tommy is the last principles son and we all know he wants the best for the school so why would he do evil things .

Bush is the Spawn of the devil .

2007-07-06 04:06:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

It is the only way that the conservatives can rationalize the acts of the right wing "leadership". Liberals could then continue the digression by stating what Clinton and Nixon did.
Whatever happened to the Rights declaration of personal responsibility?

2007-07-06 04:03:41 · answer #7 · answered by kenny J 6 · 3 0

You are absolutely correct, all this mudslinging and no one is pointing out the virtues of their chosen candidates (though I just posted what a nut job Fred Thompson is) but mostly I try to promote the issues that are important to me.
We should be living in the present and deal with the issues and the administration at hand.

2007-07-06 04:23:21 · answer #8 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2 0

i'm going to fulfill that undertaking. I voted for Bush to combat terrorism and win the war in Iraq. so some distance he's status as much as the two and shows no indications of backing down. he's doing what I voted for him to attain this as because of the fact of this I help him. NOw if he might have subsidized down on those important subjects, he probable might have lost my help. Now answer this. Can Democrats tell me how the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would not be chilly hearted to the Iraqi human beings? I recommend, we began the mess over there. Is it fairly suitable to bypass away without cleansing up our mess and enable the Iraqis cope with it? answer me that. My digital mail is open to your techniques.

2016-10-20 01:21:50 · answer #9 · answered by tamayo 4 · 0 0

Too many people in this day and age do not take responsibility for their own actions. This is not a republican or democrat issue-this is a personal responsibility issue so to properly answer your question-if everyone took responsibility for their own actions then no one would have to play the "blame game".

2007-07-06 04:19:46 · answer #10 · answered by liberalady 2 · 0 0

no, i think all of the reps know it was a bad thing to do. what we get mad at is the way the liberal media twists everything and makes bush look like this horrible guy, but dont care to mention about how clinton did the same thing.

2007-07-06 04:02:56 · answer #11 · answered by jsda_man 2 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers