It's basically money-laundering. I had to listen to some commentaators last night to figure it out. The indictment had to be changed because witht he first, they couldn't have proven anything. The second will be hard to because by Texas law, the commentators said that money-laundering is the channeling of money gained by illegal means. The original gain of the moneyw as not illegal.........still, Delay IMO, needs to go. We don't have anybody to take that seat that can't get indicted.
Ever heard of practicing what you preach? Or how about the old saying about the splinter, the plank, and the eye? Maybe you're so pompous as to think they don't apply to you? All I know is that it is futile and ridiculous to call someone out for something that you do constantly. It's called 'hypocrisy.' You can read about it if it's still not clear. I argued with you over basically nothing for quite some time until you decided to get on your high horse about me getting on my high horse. Don't let it hurt your feelings when I return fire. I tried to keep it clean and stick to the points. But as always is the case with you, you eventually just had to make this about me, didn't you? Be sure to quote this as an example of my accusatory ways.:dis: Me, too. Especially when you expose yourself for the hypocrite that you are. You're also doing a fine job of exposing what a whiny baby you are. Where I'm from, you don't talk down to people without expecting it in return. And when you do get it, you certainly can't bitch about it.
This is an interesting point. The impact and significance of particular words and phrases are dynamic. And there is an ongoing debate as to whether the drafters of the Constitution worded is as such to fit the meanings of those words and phrases at that time, or if their dynamic nature was considered so as to align with future interpretations. Which do you think it is? Do you think they were attempting to account for generations of future centuries in their phrasing? I'm not sure where I stand, but I do know that the climate in which it was written is quite different from today.
You know me Sour............I'm reading more into it. It looks like on Drudge now that a report has come out that Earle had to go to 3 grand juries to get an indictment. The one he kept for 6 months refused to return with an indictment. It'll go nowhere, but it just gives the dirt of the earth Dem's something to chew on ya know?
Does it matter what kind or world the founding fathers envisioned for our country? This is nothing but an excuse for Liberals to change the constitution. It has nothing to do with whats in the constitution. We certainly are against the public domain ruling. The ACLU was founded in 1920, my question is just like with welfare. What did we do and who policed our government before the ACLU? I don't have a problem if the ACLU would stay in line with being non-partison but they have moved far left just like the democratic party. The ACLU certainly hasn't preserved the constitution when it comes to religion in this country. I would rather no organization have that kind of power. How about the ruling the other day that put American Soldiers in harms way by releasing more photos of Abu Ghrab. All it took is a Liberal who agreed with them. The ACLU couldn't care less about this country or that we are in a war with terrorists. People have been convicted of these crimes already.
Do you think that was by a "liberal" court? The current court ain't exactly "liberal." That question doesn't really make sense to me. What did we do before we had a sewage company? Or an electric company? Could it be that they appear to be partisan now only because one side is more consistently going outside the Constitution? I'm a Christian, who also happens to agree that there should indeed be a separation of church and state. While that separation may work to Christianity's detriment (and I'm not convinced it does), the opposite could be true as religious populations change. I imagine if there were more Muslims in the US, most of us would be screaming bloody murder that there should be a separation of church and state. As it reads now, the Constitution says that. The ACLU merely seeks to ensure that Constitutional provision is not violated. Trust me, not all of their causes are evil, even if you don't always agree with them. Whether that has a real effect is debatable, IMO. I'm not sure they could be in any more harm's way than by killing the other side's people. We've been pretty good at doing that, and killing normally makes people about as mad as anything. Nevertheless, that's a whole other topic... I don't know about that. They go to an awful lot of trouble to protect individual freedom under government. Seeing how that's a bedrock of our country's foundation, I tend to think it's important and doesn't discount the welfare of our great nation.
ad hominem really is all you know isnt it. it was a mistake for me to think you were capable of understanding anything. i will help you understand one last time why you often come off as an idiot. lets say you are gay. and you are accusing me of being gay. my response is to explain to you why i am not gay, not to yell back that you are gay and therefore a hypocrite. your gay/straight status is mostly beside the point. get it? i hope you can understand the fallacy of the repeated ad hominem. that is how a child argues.
The court aint exactly conservative either. If they were conservative Terry Schiavo would've lived to see another day, the court would've reviewed the case. Rowe vs Wade would've been overturned and the public domain law would've never happened. Where was the ACLU at in the Terry Schiavo case btw, rights? They only take us the case that serves them. The question doesn't make sense? OK, ah, we were a country from 1776 until 1920 and didn't have the ACLU policing over the government. Correct? I just think this country is better off without some of these so called non-partison organizations. That goes for LBJ's great society called welfare also. I didn't realize the constitution had the ACLU mentioned by name. I guess i missed that somehow. Could it be that they appear to be partison because one side is stepping out of bounds? Sure, which side? Republicans? This is probably my last post on this thread for a while. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone here, I'm having a difficult time getting my thoughts out right now. I have an infant and a toddler at home, total chaos this morning so I hope I got my thoughts out correctly.
No, your fatal mistake was (and is almost always the case) assuming that people who disagree with you just don't understand your complex (haha) theories. Very bad analogy. It would be more fitting to say that I was accusing you of being gay and also preaching to you why that is so terrible, or denouncing you for it. Of course, if this were coming from me and I was gay, that would make me hypocritical. I'm surprised that with how smart you pretend to be you can't grasp this very basic concept. Follow my advice and read up on it. It may help avoid other faulty analogies in the future.
