RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 7:23:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



I see, so being exonerated legally just means they were still guilty but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict them.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.



Ok.  So you are going to inaccurately restate what I said, and then go on, attacking what you say I said.

I can just watch MSNBC if I want that sort of entertainment.



slvemike4u -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 7:23:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Even if its not a crime to do things like help people bring under age girls in from Central America to use as prostitutes, still its despicable. "Innocent" or not, no one has denied that what we saw in the videos real or accurate, and for you to support those scumbags is a disgusting new low for you.

No, I don't like you mike. You have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

True colors?Despite being cleared they are still "guilty"as far as your concerned?
So much for the presumption of innocence.....oh I'm sorry that doesn't apply to activists of the liberal stripe.....just to tea party scumbags heh?






Just for shits and giggles Sanity how the fuck do you know what redeeming values I have or don't have?.....what the fuck do you know of Mike the Father...or the uncle....the son or the brother?Where the fuck do you get off making such a value judgement off of a political discussion board?
Let me be clear here I give absolutely no shit at all whether or not you like me.....but you have undoubtedly revealed more about yourself with that final line than anything else.First and foremost you show yourself to be a complete and unmitigated asshole!



slvemike4u -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 7:40:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Off the top of my head and meeting the requirements of a fast reply.....Watergate would seem to qualify!


Not a good example, Mike.  That did get convictions, and Nixon needed a pardon (bastard Ford!).  A good recent example would be the Climategate emails, and the decision not to prosecute on Freedom of Information violations.
Why is it not a good example...you asked how many political scandals wind up with people doing time....Watergate was definitely a political scandal...and people definitely did time(if there was some sort of statute of limitations on the question I wasn't aware of ?)....seems to me my answer met the criteria of the question you posed.



rulemylife -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 7:57:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Ok.  So you are going to inaccurately restate what I said, and then go on, attacking what you say I said.

I can just watch MSNBC if I want that sort of entertainment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I see, so being exonerated legally just means they were still guilty but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict them.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.



Then instead of playing your usual games of pretending that really, really wasn't what you said, meant, intended, etc., etc., how about you just clarifying what it is you tried to say.

Oh wait, let me guess, I have to figure that out for myself because your intellectual superiority just dwarfs us all and you can't be bothered explaining yourself.





TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:07:30 PM)

Ok, Mike.  Fair enough.  Watergate is a big, shining contradiction to what I said.  Well snarked! [:D] 

Slime and crime still don't meet the same standards of evidence, and aren't mutually inclusionary, but you've got me fair and square.



slvemike4u -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:11:34 PM)

What the fuck Rich,it wasn't about "snark" you posed a question and I answered it...that simple.
And no,I don't think I "got you".....just pointed out one example.



TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:28:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Ok.  So you are going to inaccurately restate what I said, and then go on, attacking what you say I said.

I can just watch MSNBC if I want that sort of entertainment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I see, so being exonerated legally just means they were still guilty but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict them.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.



Then instead of playing your usual games of pretending that really, really wasn't what you said, meant, intended, etc., etc., how about you just clarifying what it is you tried to say.

Oh wait, let me guess, I have to figure that out for myself because your intellectual superiority just dwarfs us all and you can't be bothered explaining yourself.






I said slime and crime don't meet the same standards of evidence.  What's hard?  Do you believe that slimy is the same as criminal?



TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:38:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What the fuck Rich,it wasn't about "snark" you posed a question and I answered it...that simple.
And no,I don't think I "got you".....just pointed out one example.



Looked like a 'gotcha,' to me.  Learn to take a compliment, Dude.  I don't care what Sanity says about you, I still like you.


As I'm very shortly about to stop trying to explain elsewhere, being shown to be a scumbag doesn't always mean they have a case, or even that criminal acts have been committed.  To my way of looking at the world, promoting and encouraging the entitlement mentality and culture is just slimy. 

I was thinking Foley for a better example of political scandal.



DomKen -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:39:05 PM)

Spin cons spin.



TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:50:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Spin cons spin.



Do you believe that slimy is the same as criminal, Ken? 



slvemike4u -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 8:57:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What the fuck Rich,it wasn't about "snark" you posed a question and I answered it...that simple.
And no,I don't think I "got you".....just pointed out one example.



Looked like a 'gotcha,' to me.  Learn to take a compliment, Dude.  I don't care what Sanity says about you, I still like you.


As I'm very shortly about to stop trying to explain elsewhere, being shown to be a scumbag doesn't always mean they have a case, or even that criminal acts have been committed.  To my way of looking at the world, promoting and encouraging the entitlement mentality and culture is just slimy. 

I was thinking Foley for a better example of political scandal.
LOL,fair enough Rich....but really I wasn't going for a "gotcha" moment...and I will even concede that yes promoting and encouraging an entiltlement mentality would qualify as slimy.....though I don't think smearing the whole of the Acorn organization nor its aims thru some chintzy little entrapment deal conducted by zealots with a political bone to grind qualifys as such.
By the way,given the shitty little shot taken at me by Sanity....I do appreciate what you said....seriously,thanks.



DomKen -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 9:09:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Spin cons spin.



Do you believe that slimy is the same as criminal, Ken? 

I believe that we still don't know what is on the tapes in question but based on the arrogance and duplicity displayed by O'Keefe I think it extremely likely that the tapes are not accurate representations of what actually transpired.



TheHeretic -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 9:21:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I believe that we still don't know what is on the tapes in question but based on the arrogance and duplicity displayed by O'Keefe I think it extremely likely that the tapes are not accurate representations of what actually transpired.



Ah.  So you won't be going for the shopping cart adventure with RML, then?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 9:28:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



In other words, guilty until proven innocent.






Irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet of the criminal justice system, not public opinion. OJ is guilty as hell too.



slvemike4u -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 9:43:32 PM)

So outside the narrow confines of a courtroom you are comfortable deciding the question of guilt or innocence ,at least in your own mind,prior to all the facts being known?No sense all of us clinging to these stupid high falutin ideals of fairness.....not when we can rush to judgement based on our own narrow preconceptions and prejudices, heh willbur?



DomKen -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/1/2010 9:51:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I believe that we still don't know what is on the tapes in question but based on the arrogance and duplicity displayed by O'Keefe I think it extremely likely that the tapes are not accurate representations of what actually transpired.



Ah.  So you won't be going for the shopping cart adventure with RML, then?

I guess the kindest thing I can write in response to this is non sequitur.



luckydawg -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/2/2010 2:47:25 AM)

yeah slvmike, I loved the way you took everyone who said Bush was AWOL or a Draft Dodger to the woodshed...



Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/2/2010 2:54:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
I'd like to see the unedited tape.

Me too.



DomImus -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/2/2010 6:07:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
True colors?Despite being cleared they are still "guilty"as far as your concerned?
So much for the presumption of innocence.....oh I'm sorry that doesn't apply to activists of the liberal stripe.....just to tea party scumbags heh?


Violating the law and acting in an unethical fashion are two different things. Only a sleazebag would defend ACORN.



mnottertail -> RE: Now why isn't this surprising? (3/2/2010 6:30:06 AM)

LOL, ALL Republicans are Minneapolis Airport Cocksuckers.

So, e pluribus unum? I never heard of Acorn and don't really give a fuck, but this constant one example makes the entire wholesale fuckoree shit---- nah, don't buy the assumptions and so dont buy the deal.

Acorn, whatever it does, has some sleazy fuckwads working for it, no doubt, as does the US government, some of you folks wherever you work and so on.....

Thats my point and my entire point.

If Dick Nixon was a dick, (which he was), it doesn't automatically make all california republicans a dick, nor all republicans, nor all anything a dick.

Ron



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875