Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:26:32 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Aug28.222556.3926@nevada.edu>, tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >>In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> >
> >>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
> >>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
> >>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
> >>>broken the law.  
> >
> >
> >How about the way that his administration continues with efforts to have
> >the Endangered Species Act legally "re-interpreted" to support his
> >position on logging in the domain of the Spotted Owl?  This appeal has
> >been rejected twice by two seperate high courts that have realized that
> >the Act is funtioning in just the way that was intended:  to keep men
> >like Bush from _bending_ the laws when the law dosen't suit them.
> >
> >Do you need more?
> 
> Oh come, come.  This ploy is not specific to George Bush.  Both republicans
> and democrats have used this forever to have laws interpreted in the way
> they want them.  Not to mention special interest groups or any nut with
> the cash to file a law suit as an "interested party" or "friend of the
> court".  Whenever a law is passed by one group and another group is in
> power, they interpret it according to their beliefs.  You'll have to do
> better than that.  Besides, *interpreting* a law is not the same as
> breaking it, especially if the law is written in such a way as to allow
> for interpretation.
> 

Or, to put it more bluntly, YOU FRIGGING IDIOT!   This is a classic 
example of putting one's self under the law.  Bush went through the
courts to get a different interpertation so he's putting himself
above the law?????  

If the thought he was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
results of due process.)

A classic example of Bush putting himself above the law is his
friggin' motorcade:  he gets his whole route cordoned off so the
ordinary trash cannot interfere with his travel -- now that's
putting himself above the law (well almost!).

Try for a *real* example now: you know, one where he totally
ignores the law and does whatever the hell he wants anyway.

[And don't take the flames personally -- it's all fun and games
anyway --- put please try to outflame me!]

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5152 alt.politics.clinton:5458 alt.politics.perot:1481 talk.politics.misc:45500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5393