he was saying that he would be serving time under his own policies. it's irrelevant what the policies are now and how they would assertain to him some 30 years ago. if it wasn't there when it happened then it is an irrelevany argument. if you want me to go more in depth i most certainly will.
So you're saying it's irrelevant that he put laws on the books that would have severely punished behavior he himself exhibited? Sure is too bad he used up all the fun and now the rest of us have to shape up or ship off to some West Texas boot camp. And he's done it twice! Once with the drinking laws in Texas and now with the penalties for corporate evildoers.
Hey, I know grammar smack is weak. This isn't grammar smack. This is incomprehensible smack. I have no idea what you're saying here. Please translate into English.
SoFla- if you want me to go and see who penned those laws i will. odds are it wasn't him. he just signed them. also anytime a law comes up before a politician and it is one he may have violated. should he put his hands in the air and cry foul saying it cannot go through? superdave- if it wasn't in the books when it was commited then you can't use it as an arguing tool. "oh,.... but,.... well sorta" is what it adds up to.
The buck stops here. If he signed them, he obviously agreed enough with the legislation to put it into law. I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this. Ridicule? Laughter? Righteous indignation? OK. Here goes. You're seriously bringing into the argument that we shouldn't worry about the possibility that we have all these politicians running around ready to sign legislation into law that would brand them criminals? He shouldn't put his hands in the air. He should put them behind his back. Much easier to get the cuffs on. You sure as hell can when the guy in question signed the law.
no i'm saying you can't hold someone accountable for something that wasn't there. ex post facto. i'm not saying he isn't a bad person or he didn't do something wrong. i'm just saying from a legal standpoint. it doesn't work that way.
As a voter, I sure as hell am going to hold a guy accountable for his actions, especially when he acts all high and mighty about other evildoers doing exactly what he did.
That was the point all along, that people are going to judge his current actions in the context of his past actions. Legal standpoint doesn't really enter into the equation.
Irish Free State...let's pretend Bill Clinton ran for president in 2004 (yes, he can; the Constitution only prohibits 3 consecutive terms). And once in office, he's a big booster of laws preventing executives from getting bjs from their interns. We would all agree, I hope, that it's wrong for an executive to receive sexual favors from a subordinate. Right? From what you're saying, you think it would be illegitimate for lambast Clinton for advocating such laws. The issue is hypocrisy and judgment.
and with the time refence i made earlier i bring it up again. bush's "drug" and "alcohol" problems were years ago. while he was younger and did not have the responsabilities he has today. holding people accountable for mistakes is one thing. but lambasting a person for things they did in their youth is another. billy did those things while in office and deserved the scrutiny he got because he held a very high office and his responsibilities were enormous. i thought we all agreed on that years ago? now if W threw a kegger at the white house then put prohibition back into order i'd be right there with you arguing. but i just don't see releveance to something done in youth v. something done now. is a parent not allowed to discipline his child for staying out late when he or she too broke curfew as a child? people grow up and mature. with age comes responsibility.
and again i argue you window of the past. if it happened under his blanket of responsibility then it is argueable. but things done as a youth can only be scrutinized so far.
[sheepish grin]Um, the North Carolina state constitution. And I meant to type governor instead of president.[/sheepish grin] I stand corrected.
Again, he quit his heavy drinking at the age of 40. How about his shady dealings with Harken? Are we allowed to scrutinize those? He wants to pass laws that would make what he did illegal there, too.