That's my point. Unarmed or not he is a scumbag, i might be a little hardcore but i think the government should issue hunting permit for those kind of people. Something like 10 a month.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
I'm glad that their sentences were commuted. They were doing their job....and Texas, California, and so on...Hurricane2k9 wrote:
meh, a drug dealer's a drug dealer. and since he was from mexico he probably wasn't the friendly weed merchant on the corners of 14th and MLK Jr... probably had connections to the guys who are responsible for thousands of deaths in mexico.
yeah but texas and california haven't fallen into what is almost anarchy (yet >_>){M5}Sniper3 wrote:
I'm glad that their sentences were commuted. They were doing their job....and Texas, California, and so on...Hurricane2k9 wrote:
meh, a drug dealer's a drug dealer. and since he was from mexico he probably wasn't the friendly weed merchant on the corners of 14th and MLK Jr... probably had connections to the guys who are responsible for thousands of deaths in mexico.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah...I was pissed that he didn't immediately do it. McCain said that he would if I recall...don't know of Obama would, but I'm pretty sure he would have.ghettoperson wrote:
Was this really so controversial that he had to wait until his last day in office to do it?
Obama said he agrees with the descion to commute.Harmor wrote:
Yeah...I was pissed that he didn't immediately do it. McCain said that he would if I recall...don't know of Obama would, but I'm pretty sure he would have.ghettoperson wrote:
Was this really so controversial that he had to wait until his last day in office to do it?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Of course he does, he put his finger in the wind and found there was popular support for the decision.
No-one else will say it so I will.
Shooting an unarmed, non-violent guy in the back while he's running away is OTT.
Fuckers should have stayed in prison.
Anyway, I thought about half the BF2Sers were in favour of drug dealing, if not where do you buy the stuff?
Shooting an unarmed, non-violent guy in the back while he's running away is OTT.
Fuckers should have stayed in prison.
Anyway, I thought about half the BF2Sers were in favour of drug dealing, if not where do you buy the stuff?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
What is it you want to blame on him ATG?ATG wrote:
Good job Bush, now don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Ya can't blame the economy on him ( blame those thst don't pay their bills), or Katrina,( blame idiots that stayed, the state and the city first) as far as the war goes, no terror attacks since 911,( against an enemy that is hell bent on finding a way to attack you)
What is it, that you really wanna pin directly on him? What happened in your personal life that you think would not have happened if Bush were not the president?
figures,Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one else will say it so I will.
Shooting an unarmed, non-violent guy in the back while he's running away is OTT.
Fuckers should have stayed in prison.
Anyway, I thought about half the BF2Sers were in favour of drug dealing, if not where do you buy the stuff?
as for your question, I agree, kinda hypocritical
I honestly don't understand how this works - not just for this case (which I know nothing about). The court decides you're guilty and then Bush comes along and says ok he's my buddy so I'm letting him go free?
Doesn't this involvement of the president nullify the justice system as an entire separate authority?
Doesn't this involvement of the president nullify the justice system as an entire separate authority?
ƒ³
Just because you believe in legalizing pot or other drugs doesn't mean you support drug dealers. Now, if you buy illegal drugs, you're supporting drug dealers.Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one else will say it so I will.
Shooting an unarmed, non-violent guy in the back while he's running away is OTT.
Fuckers should have stayed in prison.
Anyway, I thought about half the BF2Sers were in favour of drug dealing, if not where do you buy the stuff?
Anyway, I know where you're coming from, but in my mind, the only good drug dealer is a dead drug dealer.
Legalizing stuff like pot isn't an initiative aimed at supporting drug dealers -- it's aimed at taking markets away from drug dealers.
I would agree. Pardons are pretty ridiculous, although I support this particular one.oug wrote:
I honestly don't understand how this works - not just for this case (which I know nothing about). The court decides you're guilty and then Bush comes along and says ok he's my buddy so I'm letting him go free?
Doesn't this involvement of the president nullify the justice system as an entire separate authority?
Kudos to Bush. I'd rather have those border guards pardoned than that piece of shit Jonathan Jay Pollard.
Yeah, Pollard should've been hanged.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-20 09:51:31)
Governors can do the same thing.oug wrote:
I honestly don't understand how this works - not just for this case (which I know nothing about). The court decides you're guilty and then Bush comes along and says ok he's my buddy so I'm letting him go free?
Doesn't this involvement of the president nullify the justice system as an entire separate authority?
Generally, that authority is not abused at either the state or federal level, and the decision is (usually) backed up by some kind of argument similar to an appeal in the courts.
You can make the argument about any one of the three branches of government on a given topic. That's why it's called "Balance of Powers".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well these two things don't change anything do they? The meddling of one power with the other is still there. Be it the President or the Governor - and no matter how they choose to interfere - it's still an interference imo. It means that the legal system has flaws and the President or Gov. is here to save the day. If the procedure is similar to an appeal then why don't they make it an appeal in the first place?FEOS wrote:
Governors can do the same thing.
Generally, that authority is not abused at either the state or federal level, and the decision is (usually) backed up by some kind of argument similar to an appeal in the courts.
tbh I don't quite understand what you mean in this part.FEOS wrote:
You can make the argument about any one of the three branches of government on a given topic. That's why it's called "Balance of Powers".
ƒ³
Ok so again.. they are not pardoned . That would nullifying their conviction. Bush did not do that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How about being the only president in 176 years to not veto a spending bill?lowing wrote:
What is it you want to blame on him ATG?ATG wrote:
Good job Bush, now don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Ya can't blame the economy on him ( blame those thst don't pay their bills), or Katrina,( blame idiots that stayed, the state and the city first) as far as the war goes, no terror attacks since 911,( against an enemy that is hell bent on finding a way to attack you)
What is it, that you really wanna pin directly on him? What happened in your personal life that you think would not have happened if Bush were not the president?
How about vast expansion of executive powers via signing statements?
How about destroying average Americans confidence in the very foundations of our society?
How 'bout being a lying piece of shit about being a conservative?
How about destroying the republican brand name for a generation?
What I mean in that part is that no single branch of government has absolute power over the other two. Checks and balances is another term used to describe this. That "meddling of one power with the other" is designed in to our system of government to prevent any one branch from becoming dictatorial.oug wrote:
Well these two things don't change anything do they? The meddling of one power with the other is still there. Be it the President or the Governor - and no matter how they choose to interfere - it's still an interference imo. It means that the legal system has flaws and the President or Gov. is here to save the day. If the procedure is similar to an appeal then why don't they make it an appeal in the first place?FEOS wrote:
Governors can do the same thing.
Generally, that authority is not abused at either the state or federal level, and the decision is (usually) backed up by some kind of argument similar to an appeal in the courts.tbh I don't quite understand what you mean in this part.FEOS wrote:
You can make the argument about any one of the three branches of government on a given topic. That's why it's called "Balance of Powers".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
True... but you know... I wonder... can the judicial branch overrule a pardon?FEOS wrote:
What I mean in that part is that no single branch of government has absolute power over the other two. Checks and balances is another term used to describe this. That "meddling of one power with the other" is designed in to our system of government to prevent any one branch from becoming dictatorial.oug wrote:
Well these two things don't change anything do they? The meddling of one power with the other is still there. Be it the President or the Governor - and no matter how they choose to interfere - it's still an interference imo. It means that the legal system has flaws and the President or Gov. is here to save the day. If the procedure is similar to an appeal then why don't they make it an appeal in the first place?FEOS wrote:
Governors can do the same thing.
Generally, that authority is not abused at either the state or federal level, and the decision is (usually) backed up by some kind of argument similar to an appeal in the courts.tbh I don't quite understand what you mean in this part.FEOS wrote:
You can make the argument about any one of the three branches of government on a given topic. That's why it's called "Balance of Powers".
For example, let's say Bush (for some weird reason) pardoned Charles Manson. Could the court system then bring new charges against him to overrule the pardon (essentially)? If not, it would seem that pardons tip the balance too much in favor of the executive branch.
New charges wouldn't be overruling the pardon...it wouldn't be the same charges he was convicted on.Turquoise wrote:
True... but you know... I wonder... can the judicial branch overrule a pardon?FEOS wrote:
What I mean in that part is that no single branch of government has absolute power over the other two. Checks and balances is another term used to describe this. That "meddling of one power with the other" is designed in to our system of government to prevent any one branch from becoming dictatorial.oug wrote:
Well these two things don't change anything do they? The meddling of one power with the other is still there. Be it the President or the Governor - and no matter how they choose to interfere - it's still an interference imo. It means that the legal system has flaws and the President or Gov. is here to save the day. If the procedure is similar to an appeal then why don't they make it an appeal in the first place?FEOS wrote:
Governors can do the same thing.
Generally, that authority is not abused at either the state or federal level, and the decision is (usually) backed up by some kind of argument similar to an appeal in the courts.
tbh I don't quite understand what you mean in this part.
For example, let's say Bush (for some weird reason) pardoned Charles Manson. Could the court system then bring new charges against him to overrule the pardon (essentially)? If not, it would seem that pardons tip the balance too much in favor of the executive branch.
As to the question...I don't believe it can. But it can limit the power of the Executive in other ways (finding an Executive Order to be unconstitutional, for example).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Thanks Mr Bush.
http://www.mission1accomplished.com/
http://www.mission1accomplished.com/
Xbone Stormsurgezz