Guilt by association
Posted By: cuts both ways. sm on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: Well, first of all - Chele
"…associations with terrorists, criminals, and racist individuals to me is more telling because these are associations and issues that could raise concern during a presidency.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/30572149.html
Racists / terrorists: Republican Sen. John McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. During his tenure (1981 to 1986), the Anti-Defamation League said this organization and its parent organization, the WACL (World Anti-Communist League) "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Criminal ties:
1. Charles Keating. Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12-and-a-half year sentence. He spent four-and-a-half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.
2. McCain appeared at a Oregon Citizens Alliance gathering after Marilyn Shannon had praised Shelley Shannon as a "fine lady." Shannon is an anti-abortion activist, saboteur, rhetorician and sharpshooter from Grants Pass, Oregon. She assaulted Dr. George Tiller outside his abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas on August 19, 1993, shooting him in both arms. She is serving time in FCI Dublin. Her projected release date is November 7, 2018.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html
3. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate break-in mastermind, who spent more than four years in prison for his crimes, has called McCain an "old friend" and hosted the candidate on his conservative talk radio show.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I would believe the guilt by association only...
if his policies did not scream Marxist...straight out of black liberation theology. I can see what he hopes for and the change he wants. I don't want a Marxist socialist government. Perhaps you do.
Guilt by association. Really wanna go there?
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedom who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m (can you say Iran contra?).
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry.
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
With a little research, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. Wanna go there some more?
Guilt by association? You are kidding, right?
20 years in the church, man was his mentor, baptized his children...that is an "association?"
Excuse me...my compadre? Are you now saying I am guilty of wanting to leave my country because another poster posted on this board THEY might leave?
Good grief, rip a page out of your own book. If he sat there for 20 years and was truly AGAINST racism, then he is a hypocrit at the very LEAST.
It's that guilt-by-association thingy
O haters have been harping away on that matra for months and months and months and more months while trying without success to make all their endless "connections". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another resounding theme from them has been "judgment" about the company one keeps. SP has condoned her own daughter's marriage into a crack/meth (or whatever drug) house. What is with the pubs' adversion to vetting anyway? It's going to be a bit difficult to pull off that one-big-happy-family image politicians like to project.
Don't be such a hypocrite. The glee O haters take in salivating over imagined scandals is positively palpable. I'm not that excited, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused.
I think the guilt by association thing....(sm)
is ridiculous -- from both sides. That being said, I find it hard to believe that Sarah has never even met the mother of her future son-in-law.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
Run another guilt by association smear campaign
watch that landslide turn into a monster avalanche. Some people never learn.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.
Unless, of course, you're quite prepared to admit that Obama is a domestic terrorist. (Need the associations to support that?)
Please understand. I don't blame you. I blame the public school systems that no longer teach students logical skills.
You can try to guilt.....
the posters on this board but I doubt you will be effective. Jonestown wasn't the only ones who drank 'the Kool-Aid." So did Heaven's Gate. So, it is now a mainstream term and no disrespect is intended to the victims and willing who met this fate. I refuse to be manipulated by others who try to censor my right to free speech.
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
Not sure about the admitting guilt....
Clinton did not require a pardon because he never went to trial It never went to and wasn't convicted of anything, though we all know he did it. It wasn't pursued after he left office. That should go to show that Republicans do not thirst for revenge, as they are the ones who would have to have done it, liberals obviously would not. That being said...not sure. I never heard that Marc Rich or any of the ones Clinton did the *Hail Mary* pardons for admitted guilt. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn't. I just don't see how liberals could complain if Libby was pardoned if the Republicans didn't go after Bill after he left office, and they could have. I always wondered why Monica never filed a civil suit. I am thinking either she was afraid for her life or banked a ton of Clinton money. But, that is merely conjecture on my part.
Pardons can be handed out for other reasons too I believe...I don't think the border patrol officers would have to admit guilt because they feel they were wrongly convicted. It could go that way for Libby too...who knows. I can see there are issues...no one went after Judith Miller for conveniently not remembering all her conversations. It is just a mess...
But the point is...Libby didn't leak anything. It was Armitage. And who pulls his strings? We might REALLY be surprised about that one. I would venture that it is not even on the Republican side, but came from the OTHER side to set up some of the administration. Would not be the first time and I certainly would not put it past some of Armitage's old liberal buds with a lot of moveon.org money behind it. How's that for a conspiracy theory this fine evening?
So again we agree to disagree...and...lol...I am NOT even going to go there on the ACLU tonight. Too tired...lol.
Have a good night, Lurker!
Pardons....admission of guilt...
According to this that I found, they are saying that if you *accept* a pardon, that is an implicit admission of guilt. A person does not have to say formally *yes, I am guilty.*
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year and have granted around ten percent of these, although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II than historically had been the case).
The presidential power of pardons and commutations was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Constitutional Convention. President George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous, recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[1]
It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officialy recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language - See Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690).
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
NEITHER SIDE is 100% free of guilt, 'kay?
White guilt drove the election...
plain and simple. Drones didn't want to be called racist for not voting for him so they jumped on the wagon. Too bad it is going to careen off the cliff with them.
Guilt doesn't eliminate rights
There are privileges that can be taken away after being convicted in a court of law, but in our American system of justice, he still maintains his legal rights. Whether we believe we should save the state a lot of money and fry him right now does not really matter. Our American justice system, which is one of the things we tout as making us superior to middle east justice, means that he is entitled to a free trial, where his lawyer will undoubtedly make an insanity defense. In any case, the murderer opening his mouth prejudices his own case, and apparently the prosecuting team wants to make sure this guy does not walk on a technicality.
|
