Clinton's Pardons v. Bush's Pardons, What The Murray Ledger and Times Doesn't Want You to Know

I still cannot for the life of me figure out what standards if any that the Murray Ledger & Times uses to cull its posts. There just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. Like today, some lefty had posted something like "can anyone believe that bush had the nerve to pull that stunt with scooter libby?". To which this guy Former Murray Resident replied, "Ann, what is the difference between the "stunt" Bush pulled with Scooter Libby and all of the drug dealers (including his brother) Clinton pardoned when he left office?" to which I had to reply. He did ask after all.

Attempt #1:

Former Murray Resident, the difference between Clinton's pardons and Bush's recent one is that Clinton had a Federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the pardons (who found no cause to indict). Bush has yet to receive such treatment. What is good for one lame duck ought to be as good for another. Perhaps you also might be interested your president has pardoned "drug dealers" already himself. The list of drug dealers Bush has pardoned so far is Jerry Dean Walker, Wendy St. Charles, Phillip Anthony Emmert, Bobby Mac Berry, Geraldine Gordon, John Gregory Schillace, John Louis Ribando, James Edward Reed, Eric William Olson, Harper James Finucan, Patricia Ann Hultman, George Thomas Harley, Marie Georgette Ginette Briere, and William Sidney Baldwin Sr. It's all public record should you want to look them up.

I left off the link to the list of pardons because that has in the past seemed to be a thing that keeps it from being posted. But this doesn't make it. However, this does:

"HEY IF ANY OF YOU THINK YOU SORRY A---- WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED THEN KEEP THINKING IT IS ALRIGHT FOR BUSH TO KEEP HIM OUT OF JAIL. FOR ME AND MY FAMILY WE WANT EVEN THE RICH TO GET THEIR DUES. IT SHOULD NOT BE JUST THE COMAN EVERY DAY MAN AND WOMAN WHO HAS TO PAY FOR A CRIME BUT IT SHOULD BE THE RICH AND POWERFUL AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRANT."

Which if I may say is certainly worded a little strong, if not too terribly well. But my reply doesn't. My response was not deemed worthy, but this one and the following were considered as contributing to the discussion:

"If you believe the movie SICKO by Fat A-- Michael Moore, then you would believe anything. Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge before it gets blown down...."

It must be because of the list of names. They don't want to take the time to verify it so they have just excluded it. But that's why I made sure to say "It's all public record".

So here is attempt #2:

Former Murray Resident, the difference between Clinton's pardons and Bush's recent one is that Clinton had a Federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the pardons (who found no cause to indict). Bush has yet to receive such treatment. What is good for one lame duck ought to be as good for another. Perhaps you also might be interested your president has already pardoned "drug dealers" himself. I listed 14 of them here already but apparently that was too much for the sensibilities of this message board. So just google for the list of the people who George W. Bush has pardoned and there are plenty of people with drug convictions on that list. This is a fact! At least that is what I think what stopped my last message or perhaps the editors think I am crazy and are too lazy to verify this simple fact.

I probably should have left off the insult off the end, but dang when you have a moderated message board, at least have some published standards that people can purposely adhere to instead of throwing up a hail mary.