RRC Archives

Clinton pardoning Mark Rich. I can't forgive him for that.

gulliver wrote:Clinton didn't raise the speed limits. He signed the Republican sponsored bill to drop a federal speed limit which controlled funding. Each state then did their own thing.

if you know a man is going to kill his enemy and you give him a gun, you're considered an accomplice to murder.. and that's not just some technicality, it's rightfully so.

if that's the reasoning you're using, you could say it's not the republicans that are drilling in the anwr, it the oil companies.

Really bad analogy there, and I don't think it's my reasoning that's so suspect. A veto wouldn't have held, he saw it as more important that the states got their funding, he expressed his concerns about states raising speed limits and sometimes that's the best you can do. If 10 years later you are still pissed about the speed limits when in states that allow 70+ mph, just drive slower. If after 18 years you are still pissed about any place where you can drive over 55 mph ( 1987 was the earlier relaxing of the federal regulation) just drive slower.
By your logic Reagan and Clinton also have the blood of every speed related fatality on their hands. It's truly mind-numbing how ridiculous it can be when you zealously wish it so.
I can understand your being dissapointed with the president signing the bill if you were against it. Civics class should have prepared you for the realities of government. If it only serves as a point of contention and not even an ideological one (since the other side is the one that presented the stupid thing), then you need to get a life and quit being a shit.

gulliver wrote:If after 18 years you are still pissed about any place where you can drive over 55 mph ( 1987 was the earlier relaxing of the federal regulation) just drive slower.
By your logic Reagan and Clinton also have the blood of every speed related fatality on their hands. It's truly mind-numbing how ridiculous it can be when you zealously wish it so.

actually it's not about fatalities but about other drivers who don't care about gas usage and now have the freedom to burn faster and more inefficiently. and there my analogy holds: while i might do what i can about the regulations, i can't prevent others from following through on their wishes (welcome to life). as for fatalities, i don't really care.. want to lower car fatalities? put a huge spike on the steering wheel.. that'll get people to drive slower and safer.

my point is that the leeway you afford people you like isn't the same for those you don't like. "sometimes that's the best you can do.." works for clinton but you'd never, ever say that same about bush.

all that i ask is that you recognize and acknowledge your biases. it makes you that much more respectable when trying to make a point. otherwise you're "just another flaming liberal"..