Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
struckpx said:


show me where the bush administration has been found guilty of conspiracy?

Do you even understand the case?

Libby was commuted BY BUSH. Because he was COMMUTED, not pardoned, he DOES NOT HAVE TO SPEAK. If he did, he would have to testify that Cheney ordered the leak. But because he doesn't, Cheney gets off free.

The commutation is a cover-up of the crime, and they can't be found guilty because of the cover-up.
 
unico said:


of course they are. they know what they did. we know what they did. they have now, and always have considered themselves above the law. they are playing games to avoid being held accountable.

how do we know what they did?? are you 100% sure? its Washington. do you honestly believe everything you read or watch or hear? until something is done in court, they are innocent according to our constitution. libby is guilty.
 
struckpx said:


how do we know what they did?? are you 100% sure? its Washington. do you honestly believe everything you read or watch or hear? until something is done in court, they are innocent according to our constitution. libby is guilty.

what is libby guilty of?
why did he do it?
 
Last edited:
struckpx said:


how do we know what they did?? are you 100% sure? its Washington. do you honestly believe everything you read or watch or hear? until something is done in court, they are innocent according to our constitution. libby is guilty.

That is absolute bullshit. Give me a break.

To say the court is always correct is bullshit. To say that the court is the only way to judge someone is bullshit.

What do you think cover-up means?
 
phillyfan26 said:


That is absolute bullshit. Give me a break.

To say the court is always correct is bullshit. To say that the court is the only way to judge someone is bullshit.

What do you think cover-up means?

So, to say that you are always correct is 100% right?
 
phillyfan26 said:

But, I've heard the arguments in defense of the administration, all of them, in this thread. They're pathetic.

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." -- Richard Dawkins
 
anitram said:


"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." -- Richard Dawkins

:love:
 
anitram said:


"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." -- Richard Dawkins

This quote does not apply here sadly.

You cannot jump to conclusions on evidence, most of which has been leaked by the opposing party's sources. If you guys want to start accusing people, fine. Pretty low class if you ask me. That is what elementary kids do. "Teacher, he took my pen." That is what you guys are doing.

I am waiting until some hard evidence comes out. Enough of the hear say.
 
struckpx said:


This quote does not apply here sadly.

You cannot jump to conclusions on evidence, most of which has been leaked by the opposing party's sources. If you guys want to start accusing people, fine. Pretty low class if you ask me. That is what elementary kids do. "Teacher, he took my pen." That is what you guys are doing.

I am waiting until some hard evidence comes out. Enough of the hear say.

What exactly are you talking about here? You're not implying you think Libby is innocent now, are you?
 
You're pretty funny, struck. Basically as soon as you get caught with no evidence to back up your stance, you turn on those who catch you on it, rather than go about finding the evidence to back it up. Doing the latter would work wonders on your debate skills.

Oh and just because the evidence doesn't come from your party doesn't mean it automatically comes from the opposing party. This evidence comes from various, both within the Democratic party and independent of it.
 
Diemen said:
You're pretty funny, struck. Basically as soon as you get caught with no evidence to back up your stance, you turn on those who catch you on it, rather than go about finding the evidence to back it up. Doing the latter would work wonders on your debate skills.

Oh and just because the evidence doesn't come from your party doesn't mean it automatically comes from the opposing party. This evidence comes from various, both within the Democratic party and independent of it.

Yes, exactly. You are accusing people of false accusations. Where I come from you don't accuse people.
 
struckpx said:
You cannot jump to conclusions on evidence,

What else are you supposed to jump to conclusions on?

This IS hard evidence. It's not rumors leaked by the party. It's literally the statements of those legally inolved in the case.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Does that have anything at all to do with my statement? I mean ANYTHING.

yes, everything. you said that the court of law is not merit, and therefore we can make false accusations.
 
Diemen said:
You're pretty funny, struck. Basically as soon as you get caught with no evidence to back up your stance, you turn on those who catch you on it, rather than go about finding the evidence to back it up. Doing the latter would work wonders on your debate skills.


Oh yeah, well this issue isn't important enough to discuss, I don't even know why we're discussing this.

either/or

You just can't stand anything that's not liberal.
 
struckpx said:


yes, everything. you said that the court of law is not merit, and therefore we can make false accusations.

I didn't say it's not merit. I'm saying just because he hasn't been found guilty by a court of law doesn't mean he's not guilty. He hasn't been found not guilty. He just hasn't been tried. You know why? BECAUSE OF THE COMMUTATION. IT'S A COVER UP.
 
Back
Top Bottom