Defending the Truth

You know what's hilarious?
If we actually discussed the EVIDENCE of the case, you would lose in a heart-beat...

But there are enough conservatives out there who don't have the sense to not elect a crook that it just doesn't matter...

So let me get this straight...

Without looking at any evidence, you assume that the "liberal media" is just trying to demonize DeLay?

Are you kidding me?

I'm saying that you & I are NOT being told the whole story by the media. Of course, that flies directly in the face of people like Hevusa & Foundit66 who think they already know everything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar3.html

I'm not sure what they're not saying.

Tom DeLay is being charged with money laundering. He allegedly created a fake PAC to funnel money to other Republican candidates, which is clearly illegal. There was enough evidence against him for him to resign as the House Majority leader.

What else is there to the story? Was he using some of the money to feed orphans and puppies or something?

Granted, he hasn't been convicted yet, but it's a pretty clear cut case.

1. He ALLEGEDLY did this.
2. He was forced to resign as House Majority leader so that the Republicans could "move on". Again, this is NOT a sign of "guilty". It was politically expedient.
3. It is ONLY OPINION to say that it's a "pretty clear cut case". He may very well be guilty. But the last time I checked, the American judicial system is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". At least that's what it WAS until the whining liberals decided that "rumor=fact".

And HOW do you supposedly KNOW this???
Wouldn't at least the conservative news outlets give "the other side" of the story exonerating DeLay, IF such evidence existed?

Or is your excuse above just something convenient to tell yourself?


There is a LOT of irony in your words as you, in the past, have presumed to tell others how little they didn't know based on a categorization of "snot-nosed kid".

The difference being that we are using EXISTING EVIDENCE to arrive at our conclusions...

If you want to debate the evidence, then DO SO.
But I think we BOTH know that you DO NOT want to debate the evidence.
You REALLLYYYYY don't want to do that...
Try proving me wrong...

Yeah. The #2 issue was hilarious.
The republicans adopted a rule which said he had to resign, and then he ignored THAT RULE ALSO for a while...

Intelligent people can see the trend there...


Your absolute refusal to accurately relay a situation is amazing.

1) We are saying we THINK he is guilty. Giving our opinions.
NOBODY here is saying that he should go to jail without a trial. NOBODY is entering their opinion in as evidence.
2) "rumor"????
Again, you try to ignore the EVIDENCE (not rumor) against DeLay and diminish the EVIDENCE which demonstrates his guilt.

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.
2. This is true. We just have to remember that being "charged" is NOT the same as being "convicted".
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?

And yet you throw a hissy fit when people state their opinion about thinking he is guilty.
Amazing.


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.


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...