From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:18:53 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <93008.28393.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>>>> Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.
>
>Kind of like the slap on the wrist that the Senate gave to its Keating Five
>offenders, no?

For the sake of arguement, let us say that the Keating five senators are
totally corrupt and deserve to be shot, and that the lawmakers dropped
the ball when they gave them a slap on the wrist. Even given this, how can 
you argue that 'justice is served' by allowing other crimes and misdemeanors
to go unpunished?  Should we just give up and allow all of our elected
representatives (and thier underlings) to break the law?

>>if a boob currently occupies the chair.   And even if I think that the
>>VP is a boob, I shouldn't be exempted from laws which pertain to his
>>office (if there are any).
>
>Neither should Congress.  And their check bouncing and shenanigans at the
>post office should be investigated.

1) There were no laws broken in the supposed check bouncing scheme.  My
credit union is also very lenient with overdraft protection
2)  Rostenkowski IS under investigation, as are other people involved
with the post office mess.


>>At last, we agree on something.  I too have admiration for Walsh, who
>>is willing to ignore the whining of the republican party while trying
>>to right the wrongs committed by reagan/bush/quayle.
>
>Why do you include Quayle in this?  Has anyone (even the most truth-be-damned-
>I-have-an-agenda-to-follow Democrat) suggested that Danny Boy was "in the
>loop?"  That's why it's important to hire investigators without an agenda.  You
>are fingering Quayle when he was almost certainly not involved.  I do think
>that he was just some young Indiana senator at the time.  Get the damn facts
>right.  Your agenda and disdain for the facts are becoming obvious.
>
>You've got an axe to grind, fella.  The truth be damned.  Right.

You are right, in this case.  There is no evidence linking Danny Boy (yur
words) with the Iran Contra crime.   I guess the reason I included
Quayle in my comments is that it is widely reported that Quayle was
one of the prime movers in the pardons.   Thus I guess I associate
him with the coverup, if not the crime.

That said, I would like to comment that I feel only distain for the
fact that you could not present the facts, and allow truth and justice
to carry the arguement.  It is sad that you felt impelled to immediately
attack me with labels, profanity, and innuendo.   Although I do
not normally inject comments about myself, per se', I wish to point
out that I do have the ability to admit I am wrong, when the case
is argued persuasively.  Heck, I used to be a rock bottom conservative,
but sufficiently powerful arguements were made by moderate and liberal
freinds that I have abandoned that position, and have drifted to slightly
left of center.

Your tactic of polarization, witting or unwitting, makes it very hard
to arrive at a consensus.  Nowadays the American people are being polarized
into camps by politicians who use wedge issues for the short term benefit
of a few more votes, but do not care about the long term effcts of
dividing the  country in hate filled camps.   This saddens me.


>I'd laugh too.  But I also laugh (and agonize) when I hear the jokers in
>Congress refuse to find the truth (and indict the guilty parties) in their
>own scandals.  The Democrats in Congress have played politics far more than
>the Bush Administration have--and I'm no fan of GHWB, either.
>
>I'll bet that if your favorite (liberal) Democratic Congresscreature were to
>be indicted, you'd call for the investigations to stop, too.
>
>Hypocritical bastards.
>

You make a prediction, without the benefit of enough knowledge to know
how I would actually react.  In effect, you have prejudged me,
thus exhibiting prejudice.

The reason I am insensed about the Iran Contra mess is that I view it as a
violation of trust.  If my favorite MODERATE Congresscritter were to
be indicted, then I would wiegh the evidence, consider the situation, and if
I felt the person were guilty, I'd call for harsh penalties.  Long ago
I used to be a trusting republican... then the revelations about Vietnam,
Nixon, etc... destroyed my trust in the system.  I am still angry about
that, and that is why I froth when further abuses of the system I
used to love, and still WANT to love, arise.

By the way,  if you had asked me a year ago who some of my favorite
congresscritters were, amoung my answers would have been Packwood,
Aspen, Glenn, and a few others of similar ilk, and a few liberals.

Please, if you want to argue the points, fine. If you want to simply
call me names or label me so that yu don't have to go to the bother
of really debating what I stand for, then don't bother.