Comments Posted By Marv
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 53 Comments
For Rob and Drongo as to Predidents and Pardons (from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html:
"To the framers, the power to pardon, familiar as a power of the King of England, was necessary because the way the law was applied. In England, it was common for minor offenses to carry a sentence of death, with pardon by the King being the only way to avoid the punishment. Judges often applied a death sentence, having no choice, but at the same time applied for a Royal Pardon in the same breath. This is what Hamilton was referring to when he mentioned "necessary severity" and unfortunate guilt."
Also:
There are several reasons for a President to issue a pardon, and they come from all sides of the political world. The pardons of President William Clinton can illustrate some of the various reasons. Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for obvious familial reasons. He pardoned a pair of Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, restoring their civil rights but leaving monetary penalties intact. In a controversial move, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, after application for clemency, in part, from the state of Israel, which had benefited from Rich's philanthropic gestures. President Ford pardoned President Nixon of any wrong-doing in order to put a close to the Nixon era for good. President James Madison pardoned army deserters in an attempt to refill the military's ranks for the War of 1812. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all Civil War deserters on the condition that they return to their units to fight. Carter pardoned the Vietnam War draft dodgers to help in the long healing process the nation endured after that war.
Does that clarify things a bit?
Comment Posted By marv On 3.07.2007 @ 22:11
ALL YOUR SMOKING ARE BELONG TO US
Having lived many years in the bay area,I can tell you that most of these nincompoops are the same people who cry and moan about Bush being a dictator and how he is taking away their rights....
Comment Posted By Marv On 16.11.2006 @ 10:39
I DARE YOU TO MAKE ME A DEMOCRAT
The simple fact is this, regardless of which political party you belong to: Bin Laden was right, the United states doesn't have the will to win.
Comment Posted By Marv On 13.11.2006 @ 22:35
War was declared in, what, 1989 (I think) by Bin Laden. And we igonred it. We still ignore it.
The fact is that you cannot win if you don't want it more than your enemies. You cannot win a war if you are not TOUGHER than your enemies.
We have, with this election, lost this war (not in Iraq but with the Muslim radicals), we have lost our position as a world power, we have lost our position as a negotiator, and we have lost our reputation as a country that could be relied upon. The Iraqi's worried about this in 1991. It is now confirmed that their fears were well founded.......call them democrats
IS DEFINING "VICTORY" IN IRAQ AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY?
As you say Rick, the left and the MSM will define Iraq as whatever they want regardless of the facts. We were winning in Vietnam but the press did it's best to illustrate it as a defeat, as they do today with Iraq.
The thing that really bothers me the most is that they are creating a self fulfilling prophesy, defeat for us means victory for our enemies.
If they would put as much energy in reporting the benefits and the victories, I believe the opinion and the mood of the country would be much different and, more imortantly, the battle in Iraq would be shortened and fewer lives lost.
I hold the left and the MSM responsible for prolonging the battle in Iraq. They give hope to our enemies that continued lack of support by the left will eventually give them the victory. They learned the lessons of Vietnam better than we did.
Comment Posted By Marv On 26.10.2006 @ 09:28
OCTOBER 5: A DAY OF PEACE, LOVE, AND MASS MASTURBATION
Well Larry, I'll tell you, your first sentence tells me that we'll never be able to discuss this. "fraudulently gained" tells it all. If you are at all as capable of researching FACTS as you wish everyone to believe, research the facts behind the electiion rules, algore attempting to change the rules and the efforts to prevent that change.
Comment Posted By Marv On 6.10.2006 @ 20:59
It's not a matter of me having rose colored glasses, it's more a matter of you having your head up your ass.
For Larry in LA:
You need rehab.
Your facts are incorrect and your accusations are totally unsuppported.Wall street took a NOSE DIVE after 911, the fact that the economy started to recover after tax cuts is economics, not conspiracy.
You are a perfect example why I have grown to consider lefties as ignorant conspirapricks that have lost touch with reality and the way the world works, and exactly why I am now a conservative. Man, I thought the John Birch Society was off the wall, they couldn't hold a candle to you and yours!
nite larry, good luck in your brain dissolving theories.
Comment Posted By Marv On 5.10.2006 @ 15:26
I agree with Michelle, isn't that what elections are for?
These stalinists could care less about elections. They are spoiled little children who have no clue. And any excuse that larry in LA gives is nothing but an excuse (larry, just a guess but I would bet that if wall street took the same hit during clinton that bush had, the dow wouldn't have faired any better). And, if you do your research, the market was dropping WELL before the 2000 election.
I used to be able to discuss things with liberals (hell, I used to be one!) Any more, I find it difficult to even tolerate them.
Comment Posted By Marv On 4.10.2006 @ 17:48
Ya know, back in the old days when I was a kid there were a couple of kids who always got into fights. Everytime they saw each other they would get into it. They were always broken up by the neighbors until one time one of the parents had finally had enough and let them duke it out until it was done. That was the end of tha, no more fights between them.
I say "to hell with a cease fire" let them duke it out until someone gets their butt kicked and goes home with a bloody nose. I suspect that will lead to a longer "lasting peace" than any of the previous attempts.
Comment Posted By Marv On 4.08.2006 @ 15:32
PC Said:
Laughable. The times did its job. The Times leaked nothing, they publushed something that was leaked to them, and this program was widely known.
PC...Pay attention here:
1) What is the Times "job"? To print national security secrets that are legal, currently operative, effective and productive for the sake of the national interest? You know, I always wondered if Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.....
2) If someone comes into your office, spills a bunch of secrets on your desk and you choose to publish it on your blog, who would be the one who leaked it and who should go to jail?
3) Please, since it was widely known, give me the details of this operation as you understood it before the times printed it.PC, what's that stand for?
Comment Posted By Marv On 3.07.2006 @ 18:05
Penile/Cranial inversion?
THE COWARDICE OF THE DEMOCRATS
What has always explained the Democrats stand to me is this:
Comment Posted By Marv On 17.06.2006 @ 07:28
If, as they say, they are for the troops and against the war, they would be rallying around the efforts to be victorious so that the trooops could return home safely earlier. Yet what they do only encourages and emboldens the enemy, it prolongs the war, as it did in Vietnem.
In the end, how many more troops may have died because the enemy saw the lack of determination for victory by the left will never be known. But it is quite possible that instead of the current number of 2500 the number might have been 2000. For that I will never forgive them their desire to put political power over the security of this country.
