ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Rangel convicted on 11 of 13 counts

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 12:05 pm

>>His lack of a need to prove that something that didn't happen didn't, in fact, happen does not make your statement anything other than false, unless, of course, and can provide evidence that your claim is true

thats exactly the point. You cant prove he hasnt raped and killed some one only that he has. which is why the statement about not having to be convicted of a crime to have committed one is TRUE but utterly pointless

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 12:15 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>>His lack of a need to prove that something that didn't happen didn't, in fact, happen does not make your statement anything other than false, unless, of course, and can provide evidence that your claim is true thats exactly the point. You cant prove he hasnt raped and killed some one only that he has. which is why the statement about not having to be convicted of a crime to have committed one is TRUE but utterly pointless
Why is it pointless?


becuase it allows for broad statements that cant be proven false. Its about specifics. If i said you raped and killed a certain woman on a certain night. Then you could prove that you couldnt have done it. Anyone can be guilty of anything under your statement. the whole point is specifics. Give a specific charge of what cheney did then you can either prove or disprove its truthfulness.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 12:16 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

, and now you suddenly turn 360 and prove I'm right. Good for you! I'm happy for you.


if i turned 360 id be going the same way i was before....

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 12:25 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

What's wrong with that statement? It's completely true. It applies for every one on Earth. We are ALL capable of committing ALL Crimes simply because the crimes exist, we exist, and our capability of mixing the two also exists.


its pointless becuase every one knows this. This whole thing started with a broad accusation of cheney. Which we have shown is impossible to disprove. I asked for specific evidence before i would believe the accusation and then we have launched into 10 page discussion on semantics. After all this we are still at the beginning where there is a broad accusation and no specific proof.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 12:49 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

What's wrong with that statement? It's completely true. It applies for every one on Earth. We are ALL capable of committing ALL Crimes simply because the crimes exist, we exist, and our capability of mixing the two also exists.
its pointless becuase every one knows this. This whole thing started with a broad accusation of cheney. Which we have shown is impossible to disprove. I asked for specific evidence before i would believe the accusation and then we have launched into 10 page discussion on semantics. After all this we are still at the beginning where there is a broad accusation and no specific proof.
Caltrek has already posted a bunch of this proof. Your refusal to believe it's there is what's wrong, then? Or do you also dismiss it outright because you think such sources are not credible? I believe asked either you or Chr what it would take for you to believe in a source and I never got an answer.


you think caltrek some of sources are "bat-shit" and he only provided 3 sources. One to a liberal only publication, one to an anti halibutron site and an irrelevant article in the NY times about shoddy construction that has nothing to do with cheney

i also said sources like CNN, CBS, NBC, NYtimes, Washington post would be fine to which you replied they were "Super Republican Forever!!! newspaper and signed off by George Bush himself" and then also stated that the major media wouldnt report on Cheney becuase he is "untouchable"

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 1:07 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

> I asked what would it TAKE, "Super Republica (etc)?"


so after i told you it would take CNN, NBC, Nytimes ect, then you asked me what it would take? that doesnt seem very logical. why would you ask me what it would take when i had just previously told you specific media organizations that i find credible?

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Nov. 30 2010, 1:43 pm

>>I STILL think he has done some bad things, but who in Washington hasn't? I'd say more politicians than haven't have finagled themselves into illegal activities numerous times.


not just politicians but anyone with a large amount of power usually gets into a lot of illegal activities


>>I believe what some of the sources tell me, but you do not. And that is fine.


I tend to mostly trust the big media more becuase of what they have to lose. If joeblogger.com prints something false they dont have a reputation to uphold. the big media also attracts the best journalists with the best sources so if they dont report it theres a good chance theres not enough credible info about the subject


>>Again, sorry for not reading your whole post. I was mistaken in saying that no one replied to me when I asked what sources they would consider credible, as you certainly did. :-)


NP everyone makes mistakes

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 01 2010, 6:13 pm

UNTRugby: “nice try, he was National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone. care to make up more credentials about him?”


Caltrek: Even better, he can concentrate on the political stories and not worry about the coverage of musicians.


Caltrek :As for your charge of bias, being liberal doesn't mean one is wrong or that one's allegations are false.

UNTRugby: “It doesnt but it also cant be taken at face value because of the bias which is the whole problem to begin with.”


Caltrek: Problem with that line of argument is it can be used about every issue. "Well, you (or your source) display a liberal bias in your argument therefore I am going to ignore everything you say”.  Fine. Ignore what I write, but don’t waste the time of the rest of us with the same old tired line of reasoning on every issue that comes up. Fact is, you complained about my source, I explained why I thought my source was reliable and then corroborated his argument with other links. You still refused to consider the evidence presented by those other links, thus raising the bar.


Caltrek: At any rate, if you are so convinced you are right, why not introduce some countervailing evidence rather than just whine about how liberal my sources are?

UNTRugby: you would have to provide some REAL evidence of wrongdoing before i can counter it. 


New York Times: "Mr. Cheney’s financial disclosure statements from 2001, 2002 and 2003 show that since becoming vice president-elect, he has received $1,997,525 from the company: $1,451,398 in a bonus deferred from 1999, the rest in deferred salary. He also holds options to buy Halliburton”


Yanks: All legal?


Caltrek: Perhaps, perhaps not. What it does show is that Cheney had ample motivation to bring contracts and other such business Haliburton’s way, even at the expense of the public interest. Below is a link  that consists of  a bill introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich when Bush was still president. It would have resulted in the House of Representatives voting on whether to impeach Cheney. It shows the grounds upon which Kucinich thinks Cheney should have been impeached, essentially that he lied to Congress and the American people.


http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf


Oh folks, and please don’t respond with that same old crap about how Kucinich is a liberal.


I would just ask you a question: would you or would not have wanted your Representative in Congress to vote for the impeachment bill that Kucinch drafted? No evasions or whining about him being a liberal, just would you have wanted your Representative to vote for the bill?


If your answer is no, then why not? Is it because you don’t believe Cheney lied?


UNTRugby: “you think caltrek some of sources are "bat-shit" and he only provided 3 sources. One to a liberal only publication, one to an anti halibutron site and an irrelevant article in the NY times about shoddy construction that has nothing to do with cheney.”


Caltrek: That is simply not true. On page 8 of this thread I cited a New York Times article to corroborate the initial Greider citation. I called specific attention to the sentence concerning his deferred compensation and stock options that I have also repeated above. Here is that link again, since you don’t seem to remember it having been presented in the first place:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/national/28fact.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Cheney+deferred+compensation&st=nyt


UNTRugby: “I tend to mostly trust the big media more becuase of what they have to lose.”


Caltrek: Mehh, I would trust The Nation over The New York Times any day of the week. They simply attract some of the best and most informed writers around on any given subject. To each his own.


 


 


 


 


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Dec. 02 2010, 7:30 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Dec. 01 2010, 6:13 pm

> style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Caltrek: That is simply not true. On page 8 of this thread I cited a New York Times article to corroborate the initial Greider citation. I called specific attention to the sentence concerning his deferred compensation and stock options that I have also repeated above. Here is that link again, since you don’t seem to remember it having been presented in the first place:

> style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/national/28fact.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Cheney+deferred+compensation&st=nyt

> style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">


heres a quote from that article
"Mr. Cheney’s critics concede that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton’s behalf."


maybe you should read articles before you post them

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 03 2010, 6:10 am

UNTRugby: "heres a quote from that article
'Mr. Cheney’s critics concede that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton’s behalf.'


maybe you should read articles before you post them"


Caltrek: I did read the article in question and do recall reading the sentence you cited. If you have read the Kucinich bill you should have ralized that the case against Cheney that Kucinich presents in not based on any direct intervention on Haliburton's behalf. Rather, it is based on Cheney's lying to the American public to promote war. My emphsis on Cheney's continued ties to Haliburton, part of the military industrial complex, suggest a reason why he might have been motivated to produce such lies. At the very least, there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest there.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 03 2010, 9:49 am

Oh, and this just in about legal charges that Cheney may yet face:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/world/africa/03cheney.html?_r=1


This does not cover his actions while Vice-President, but rather before, when he was at Haliburton. After the incidents in question, the Republicans chose to put him on the tic


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum