Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan 1. The evidence against him is pretty damning. If the glove fits, blah blah blah, etc.
2. Actually, he had to resign because the House Republicans have a rule. No one that has even been charged with a felony is allowed to be be the House Majority Leader. The Republicans were going to change the rule for Tom DeLay, but people complained that it was a crooked thing to do.
3. When someone is under investigation for something as serious as a felony, people should probably suspend their "benefit of the doubt" attitude for a bit, unless they are personally involved in the trial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120500426.html | 1. This is true. No doubt. |
And yet you throw a hissy fit when people state their opinion about thinking he is guilty.
Amazing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jefferson 2. This is true. We just have to remember that being "charged" is NOT the same as being "convicted". |
Who is this "we"?
Habitually, you argue via strawman argument. Arguing against a position that nobody actually has.
Here, a variety of people have stated that they think he is guilty. Nobody has said he has been "convicted".
Personally, I think OJ is guilty as well. But would you have such a fit if I were to state so when he was not only not convicted, but acquitted?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jefferson 3. Why should people suspend their "benefit of the doubt" attitude? And if that is true, should people not ALSO suspend their "stone the bastard" attitude as well? |
A "benefit of the doubt" attitude is not a requirement for people. It may be something you are doing, but it means little if others have decided that the evidence of his case show it isn't warranted.
When the evidence against somebody is just so overwhelming, it makes no sense to give that person a "benefit of the doubt".
It just comes across as sticking to a mindless standard.
Suppose we had a man accused of raping a nun. The nun positively identifies him. The man's semen has been positively identified from the nun. A video camera positively identifies the man as going into the nun's room right before the rape, and leaving shortly after. Finger-prints. ....
WHY do we need to give a "benefit of the doubt" when none is warranted or deserved?
But now, getting back to a point, do you think it makes any real sense to try to elect a guy that is probably going to be convicted? A guy who probably broke a variety of political laws the LAST TIME he was in office?
To me, it's like trying to elect the fox to guard the henhouse even though you have evidence that he ate a couple of the chickens on his last watch.
It doesn't matter if he's Republican or Democrat. It makes no sense to me.
And I think it is YOUR political nature that has blinded you to this reality...