Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll agree that actions speak louder than words. Bypassing FISA courts really speaks of a lack of respect for the Constitution. But let's be honest, how much of what the Congress passes is Constitutional? A majority of the clowns we have as elected officials have no respect for it either... so let's throw the bunch out on the streets.
As the Tufts University professor wrote in CounterPunch, three witnesses have confirmed that Bush made the statement. Of course, the evidence would have to be circumstantial because it wasn’t an official press event. If so many people have corroborated this comment about the Constitution, in highly visible arenas, it makes sense that Bush would have denied having said it. Where is the denial? What sources can you provide?
A related issue here is that I never revealed my personal views, about which you appear to making some assumptions. In my posting, I only cited the quote to expand the context of the discussion. In addition, the response was made to a request from another participant (KantLockeMeIn). The suggestion was to check it for yourself, to your own satisfaction.
I provided a reference; I never took a position on the topic.
As the Tufts University professor wrote in CounterPunch, three witnesses have confirmed that Bush made the statement. Of course, the evidence would have to be circumstantial because it wasn’t an official press event. If so many people have corroborated this comment about the Constitution, in highly visible arenas, it makes sense that Bush would have denied having said it. Where is the denial? What sources can you provide?
A related issue here is that I never revealed my personal views, about which you appear to making some assumptions. In my posting, I only cited the quote to expand the context of the discussion. In addition, the response was made to a request from another participant (KantLockeMeIn). The suggestion was to check it for yourself, to your own satisfaction.
I provided a reference; I never took a position on the topic.
That's not evidence. That is assumptive subjective reasoning to come to a conclusion. The fact that he did not deny it does not make the statement true. It is a logical fallacy to support that claim in that manner.
As for me coming down hard on you, it has nothing to do with your "personal" position on the issue, It is more of the case that there are numerous cases of unfounded slander out there and they ride the backbone of hoping people will not ask questions and just "believe" it is true.
Having three witnesses that claim this is not evidence unless those witnesses are willing to identify themselves. They don't identify the witnesses, they merely claim three "aids" verified it.
It would be like me saying that I have witnesses that work with you that claim they heard you say that you want to kill some people. I can't name who they are, just that they work near you, but you just trust me, this is true and I think you should seek some help before you harm someone.
Its not evidence, its not fact, it to be honest is nothing short of slander.
Do you think this is a live show, in which everything they do is shown, and nobody knows they are on candid camera? Or are there producers and editors who are creating a finished product in which the appearance is somewhat they way they want it to be? I've never seen the show, but I would anticipate watching it with the same misgivings that I have when I start to watch the "news". I.e., what I'm seeing is a reflection of somebody's agenda.
No..This is not a live show by any means and I'm sure a lot was/is edited.
To: Nomander
I respect your right, to your own opinion.
I am not stating an opinion. What I have stated concerning your claim is a quantifiable fact. The claim you posted is a fallacy, it is not supported in the slightest.
I'm watching the show First 48 on A&E and I'm amazed at how these knuckleheads go down to the station and are interrogated--even though the police sometimes don't have enough evidence to charge them. I'm glad these knuckleheads are being taken off the street but why in the hell do they talk to the police.
All you have to say is "I want a lawyer."
You have nothing to gain by talking to the police.
1st off criminals are not very smart but on the other hand sometimes if they give infprmation the DA cuts them a break on their charges, most people who are arrested were arrested for a reason, if a person is innocent they are not going to admit or give up any information because they won't have any to give. Wheb a cop gives you the right to remain silent it's a good idea to do just that.
The cop does not "give you the right" ro remain silkent until you are placed under arrest. The cop, trained to use fear and intimidation, does not disclose that you have that right until he decides to arrest you. What he does not tell you is that everything you have already said can and will be used against you (but, of course, never be used in your favor).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
