Lonestar_logic
Republic of Texas
- May 13, 2009
- 24,539
- 2,233
- 205
ReallyYou can not LIE about a NON Crime.
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?
He lied under oath.
Clinton Impeachment
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ReallyYou can not LIE about a NON Crime.
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?
ReallyYou can not LIE about a NON Crime.
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?
He lied under oath.
Clinton Impeachment
Really
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?
He lied under oath.
Clinton Impeachment
So you CAN lie about a non-crime?
Thanks for backing my point.
Really
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?
He lied under oath.
Clinton Impeachment
So you CAN lie about a non-crime?
Thanks for backing my point.
this thread is gay..................
I'm still waiting on you to show that Rove lied. You have all the documents pertaining to the case so it should be easy for you to point out the alleged falsehood.
Can you admit that you were wrong when you said:In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.
This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.
I'm still waiting on you to show that Rove lied. You have all the documents pertaining to the case so it should be easy for you to point out the alleged falsehood.
No I don't have ALL the evidence - prosecutor has that and will determine whether or not she wants to persue criminal charges. I'll trust her.
btw. lonestar - I've given you the benefit of the doubt. Treated you respectfully and I have shown that I am willing to admit it when I am wrong.
I'm waiting to see if you can reciprocate. Can you admit your mistake:
Can you admit that you were wrong when you said:In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.
This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.
Can you admit that a "sizable lead in identification" makes absolutely no claim as to "diversity" or how "homogeneous" a political party is.
Don't rake me over the coals for having previously presumed guilt if you are just going to turn around and presume innoce.
That's hypocritical.
You should try to at least learn our legal system... Perhaps you were absent when they discussed "innocent until proved guilty" in class...
I have nothing to apoplogize for, you presented your argument, I disagreed with it. I do not believe that the republicans have been more homogenous than the democrats. If you disagree with the quotes I provided or feel it didn't warrant a contradiction, then that's your prerogative. I have no desire to rehash this discussion because it does nothing to further the debate.
Don't rake me over the coals for having previously presumed guilt if you are just going to turn around and presume innoce.
That's hypocritical.
You should try to at least learn our legal system... Perhaps you were absent when they discussed "innocent until proved guilty" in class...
^ conveniently ignored...
I have nothing to apoplogize for, you presented your argument, I disagreed with it. I do not believe that the republicans have been more homogenous than the democrats. If you disagree with the quotes I provided or feel it didn't warrant a contradiction, then that's your prerogative. I have no desire to rehash this discussion because it does nothing to further the debate.
If someone cannot admit it when they are wrong - as I have - then what is the point of debating them?
You should try to at least learn our legal system... Perhaps you were absent when they discussed "innocent until proved guilty" in class...
^ conveniently ignored...
Sorry for the delay - lot's of folks taking lots of shot. I had to ration my time. But My position is that the presuption of innocence doesn't include a presumption of aquittal. It sets a legal standard for prosecution.
My opinion in this subject is not wrong.
I could make the exact same claimYou are really floundering in this thread... You might want to quit while you are woefully behind...
^ conveniently ignored...
Sorry for the delay - lot's of folks taking lots of shot. I had to ration my time. But My position is that the presuption of innocence doesn't include a presumption of aquittal. It sets a legal standard for prosecution.
You are really floundering in this thread...
You might want to quit while you are woefully behind...
I could make the exact same claimYou are really floundering in this thread... You might want to quit while you are woefully behind...
Dr. H would know because he has had to quit dozens of times recently. He gets in over his head, but he does get excited. So give Dr. H. a break.