Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence - Page 25

phillyfan26 · 07-10-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

if you want to falsely accuse them, be my guest. i won't be apart of it.

How is it a false accusation?

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26

How is it a false accusation?

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

unico · 07-10-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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

ask libby. he knows

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unico

ask libby.

so they aren't guilty, are they.

phillyfan26 · 07-10-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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 · 07-10-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

so they aren't guilty, are they.

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.

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unico

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.

unico · 07-10-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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?

phillyfan26 · 07-10-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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?

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26

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?

BVS · 07-10-2007, 04:26 PM

anitram · 07-10-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26

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

Lila64 · 07-10-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram

"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

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram

"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.

BVS · 07-10-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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?

**Diemen** · 07-10-2007, 07:21 PM

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.

A_Wanderer · 07-10-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

You cannot jump to conclusions on evidence

Think very carefully about this statement.

struckpx · 07-10-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diemen
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.

phillyfan26 · 07-10-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
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 · 07-10-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-10-2007, 04:26 PM	#491
BVS Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: between my head and heart Posts: 41,228 Local Time: 08:09 AM

07-10-2007, 07:21 PM	#496
Diemen Resident Photo Buff Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Somewhere in middle America Posts: 13,644 Local Time: 09:09 AM	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.