Pima County has released the 911 call (warning: graphic content) from the Arizona murders that local activist Shawna Forde has been charged with.
The Herald has a summary of the recording, which takes place after Raul Flores and his daughter Brisenia were fatally shot. On the call you can hear the survivor, the mother of the family, exchanging gunfire with the assailants.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 17, 2009 12:46 AM | Email ThisThe tragedy aside, it is nice to see the 2nd amendment at work saving the woman's life as she returned fire.
Posted by: deadwood on June 17, 2009 06:29 AMPudge, its a 911 tape - its entirely audio content. The only graphic part is the software interface for playing the audio. A warning is not required for that particular interface.
Posted by: deadwood on June 17, 2009 06:53 AMFirst, you have some hack like Herald writer Mike North that simply doesn't report the story,but attempts to use it to further his political agenda and interviews a "northwest journalist" (even though he's a left wing loon that believes that the right wants to exterminate liberals) Mike Neiwert, whom makes Ann Coulter sound like a moderate. Neiwert is so desperate to tie a "right wing" spin to this that he rolls out Robert Matthews' 'the order' from 25 years ago.
Do we hear this same paper refer to Eco-terrorists or Animal liberation front terrorists as left wing groups or even left leaning? Of course not. Instead, we get the homogenized version that calls them "environmental activists" in the story heading, with never a reference to any particular political wing.
One thing that was fairly humorous and probably sums up succinctly the members of these left wing nut jobbery groups like ELF was the last line in the herald story.
[Tre] Arrow legally changed his name from Michael Scarpitti after talking to trees that he said somehow communicated with him.Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 07:14 AM
deadwood: "graphic" in such a context has nothing to do with whether something is audio or video. As Oxford's says, "graphic means the ppoer to evoke a strikingly lifelke representation, whether it is in pictures or in words."
And while I wouldn't call Forde fat, she certainly could be described as "stocky" or somesuch, and when you've just been shot and your family's been killed, perhaps we'll give her a wee bit of leeway? After all, she also said her daughter was 10, when apparently she was 9 (perhaps she was rounding up, and perhaps "fat" was simply the word she used for "bigger than normal build").
Rick D.: yes, while I am no fan of Forde's, I think they have strayed significantly from objective reporting of her, such as in the February "expose" they did of her. That said, I don't think it's been terrible reporting, but it definitely has had a negative tone toward her, even before the murder charges.
If Scott North were to do just half of the in-depth investigation into some other criminal groups (say ACORN or ELF or ALF) that he's done with Shawna Forde's life prior to this weeks charges being filed for the incident in AZ, he'd probably be in contention for a pulitzer.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 08:54 AMEverything is tinged with the uncertainty of hasty generalization and surmise. The authorities may simply not have much, but If anyone (besides her) knows the facts, they are not telling. At the Yakima "stage show" about immigration with Enrique Cerna, Ms. Forde made legitimate, important, and cogent points. Except possibly to liberals who vilify anyone who disagree with their hyper-emotionalized views on the subject, her comments mean nothing useful concerning her motives or possible connection to the murders.
Rick D is right on about the reportage. In the glaring absence of hard facts, each report jumped to conclusions and hastened to imply linkages between her supposed acts and the supposed motives of organizations that she is supposed to be a part of. Obviously there are circumstantial links but no substantial link between these incidents and Forde's political leanings. Only spare inferences. There are too many unanswered questions left.
With the state of the art of criminal investigations today it will hopefully not be long before the truth comes out about who did what. I just wonder if that truth will be reported without being distorted with liberal embellishments and editorial misdirection by those who wish to vilify her for political purposes.
It is questionable whether Ms. Forde is actually a conservative or simply a crusader against illegal immigration. The two are not inextricably linked. Either way conservatives have always been ready to turn away from criminals within their ranks when they are found, because conservatism (quite unlike liberalism) is inherently anti-criminal and won't tolerate even the appearance of it. If Forde is guilty and a reasonable authority proves it, I say hang her high.
This makes a great opportunity for liberals to rank. One need only look at the last thread on this subject to recognize that this will continue to be about political smears from the left. Smears are nearly all they ever have. Maybe NBC can hire Blago to be the investigative reporter on this.
First, the 911 descriptions basically fit the suspects. That's not much, but it's a start.
The mother mentioned on the call her husband had a run-in with a woman shortly before the murders. If the mother could positively identify Forde as that woman, that is significant.
We know that Bush was treated for a gunshot wound, and that Forde was with him. That's very big, especially if they can recover the bullet and match it to one of the guns.
We know that Bush has been implicated in another murder and another robbery, and that the latter was a family friend of Forde's.
There's more, but that's a good amount of evidence to start with right there.
I agree that tying this to the Minutemen at large or the right-wing movements out there is ridiculous nonsense (and while she has affiliated herself with conservatives, I don't know much beyond that about her political views, except for the illegal immigration stuff). But there is some serious evidence out there that Forde is involved with this double murder.
I saw someone say on dKos "Rethuglicans" won't post this story because they want to bury it. I note for the record that I posted it before any other non-mainstream press did. As you note, conservatives are not afraid of "hanging high" those who so egregiously violate the law. I think there's strong evidence against her, but I reserve judgment as usual.
The appearance of it? Tom DeLay and Ted Stevens come to mind. As well as the entirety of the 2006 mid-term election. You're a delusional fool.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 11:26 AMI'm simply just seeking facts to find the truth.
This case seems light on conclusive facts and heavy on rambling inaccuracies laced with sinister socio/political connotations.
While the reportage seemed oddly lacking in certainty (possibly due to a simple lack of positive proof), I agree with your analysis, it is likely that she is guilty.
You wrote, "We know that Bush was treated for a gunshot wound, and that Forde was with him."
As of Monday I was unable to ascertain from the record if the authorities had proved that Forde was with Bush at the murder scene; a fact which is (of course) fairly conclusive. If Forde is tied to the scene as you say, obviously she's (at best) complicit in the crime.
The best info I found on this point was "The three [Forde, Bush and Gaxiola] are alleged to have dressed as law enforcement officers and forced their way into a home about 10 miles north of the Mexican border in rural Arivaca on May 30, wounding a woman and fatally shooting her husband and their 9-year-old daughter." http://wenatcheeworld.com/article/20090616/NEWS04/706159908
However this works out in the end, it doesn't look good for Forde.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 17, 2009 11:39 AM
Stevens WAS thrown overboard by the GOP, and there was never any serious allegation of serious wrongdoing against DeLay, no matter how much you wish the facts were otherwise.
As well as the entirety of the 2006 mid-term election.
Such as ... ?
You're a delusional fool.
Back at you.
Amused: I'm simply just seeking facts to find the truth.
And I gave you some important ones.
As of Monday I was unable to ascertain from the record if the authorities had proved that Forde was with Bush at the murder scene ... If Forde is tied to the scene as you say
That is not what I said. I said Bush had a gunshot wound. I didn't say or imply this ties her to the scene, only that it COULD tie Bush to the scene, and that she was with him soon after the gunshot wound occurred, which means she is very possibly the woman on the 911 call.
Most likely, the police have linked the three to the crime through the mother's eyewitness testimony by this point: she saw them all, and could positively identify them.
Rick D.: wow. That's ... that's a terrible story. Absolutely no allegations of wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever, and the Herald implies they are some sort of crazies that we should do something about.
Corruption is not a political party matter, it is a politician matter. Republicans happened to be in power for many years and thus got caught up in a handful of corruption scandals.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 12:01 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/
And what does Wikipedia have to say?
* Randy Cunningham, convicted of accepting $1.3 million in bribes.
* Bob Ney, plead guilty to accepting bribes.
* Tom DeLay, indicted on charges of money laundering.
* Scooter Libby, convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI.
* J. Steven Griles, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.
* Mark Foley, resigned after a sex scandal involving a 16-year-old male page.
* Bill Frist, reported to have maintained additional stock holdings outside of his blind trust, creating a conflict of interest.
* Curt Weldon, being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of trading political influence for lobbying contracts for his daughter. Weldon did not resign, but in his 2006 re-election campaign, the Washington Post reported that the Republican Party had "all but abandoned" him.
* Dennis Hastert, for allegedly trying to cover up warnings about inappropriate conduct by Mark Foley, and from taking contributions from Jack Abramoff to the tune of over $100,000.
Democrats have their problems, and no party has a perfect or even great record with corruption. That's why saying "because conservatism (quite unlike liberalism) is inherently anti-criminal and won't tolerate even the appearance of it" is delusional, and if you believe it pudge then you are a fool as well.
DeLay and Stevens were long known to be corrupt politicians before their indictments came down. Whether they explicitly broke the law in some cases or not, they were corrupt.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 12:11 PMGlad you brought that up.
Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing, after being falsely prosecuted. "Not only did the government fail to provide evidence to the defense that the law requires them to provide, but they created false testimony that they gave us and actually presented false testimony in the courtroom," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/stevens.case.dropped/index.html
Likewise, Tom DeLay will be cleared of any wrong-doing when he is tried. It will also be very likely be proven that both of these prosecutions were pressed forward by liberal politicians who could not defeat them politically and thus misused the law to get them in court. This fact will be severely under-reported in the "main stream media" just like Ted Steven's exoneration. Gee . . . wonder why?
In the same way that Scooter Libby was unfairly pilloried with corruption, for a crime that never existed, the left cannot win unless they cheat.
If either is ever proven guilty of anything, they should be punished and drummed out of the conservative corps.
Unlike the Democrat Party, we neither need nor want criminals in our midst.
We'll leave them for self-appointed geniuses like Rizzo to defend with empty partisan nonsense.
In the same vein, if Shawna Forde is guilty of murder, she should be prosecuted and severely punished.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 17, 2009 12:18 PM2006 exit polling: Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration.
Scooty Libby was convicted, Stevens' case was dropped on a technicality, and DeLay's case is going to trial. You want to defend these guys? Sure, do it -- you are a partisan hack after all. But don't claim that you "won't tolerate even the appearance of" corruption. You obviously will.
I would never defend Rep. Murtha, yet here you are saying Stevens was "cleared"? That is delusional. (And pudge, that is why I used such strong language -- Amused is a hack.)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 12:27 PMYou said DeLay: the charges against him are completely non-serious, and in fact so much so that some of them were based on violation of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto law. That said, he was removed from leadership because of the APPEARANCE of it. But there's no serious evidence of actual wrondoing against DeLay.
You said Stevens: he was thrown overboard by the GOP when his wrongdoing came to light. "Known" to be corrupt is crap. If you know it, you prove it. By your standard the whole Democratic caucus should be tossed out, as they are almost all "known" to be corrupt. (And no, Amused, it was not dropped due to lack of evidence, it was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution. There was plenty of actual evidence.)
Foley and Cunningham and Ney were thrown overboard.
Libby will never work for the government again, for his (very questionable) wrongdoing. I was never convinced the evidence proved any crime ... that said, I disagreed with the decision to commute his sentence, unless Bush was going to also come out and say "Libby did nothing wrong, and here is why the court got it wrong." He didn't do that, so IMO he should not have had his sentence commuted, even though I disagree that the case was proven sufficient for conviction. But the point is: he has paid the price for his wrongdoing, and is persona non grata now.
Frist isn't as guilty of wrongdoing as Feinstein is (and probably the majority of Democrats).
And you're allegation against Hastert in re Foley is complete and utter nonsense. It never happened and there is no evidence it did. And taking money from Abramoff IS NOT WRONG and never has been. That's just a very feeble and dishonest attempt by you to invent a perception of corruption that doesn't exist.
So the only one you have here where someone actually did something wrong and got through it basically unscathed in the party is Frist, and again, what he did is basically what most Senators, especially on the left, do.
And I don't dispute that the Democratic Party (along with the media) was very successful in lying to the public about the extent of the corruption of the GOP. A lot of sheep out there actually believed the GOP was more corrupt than the Democrats. Crazy, but they believed it. Granted, part of this was the fault of the GOP who gave the Dems opportunity to complain, especially with the timing of Foley.
But what is more important is that Republican voters are much less likely to vote for a corrupt person (or perceived party) than Democratic voters. Corruption has been endemic to the Democrats for our entire lives. Democratic voters don't care. Republican voters often do, and this -- combined with the GOP failures on spending, and on certain libertarian issues, and immigration -- made a lot of conservative voters simply not vote, or vote for Democrats just to punish the GOP, knowing full well the Democrats are even worse from their own perspective. But better to have a clear enemy before you than an enemy posing as an ally.
Are local newspapers in general non-mainstream? Are they ever mainstream? If so, why isn't the Everett Herald mainstream?
Posted by: BA on June 17, 2009 12:32 PMNot to encourage the off topic trolls, but may I direct them to a WSJ article here for a small sampling of their political corruption (keep in mind many are still serving) and doesn't even cover William Jefferson, Roland Burris or Diane Feinstein scandals.
2010 is the time to clean up the filth in the House.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 12:33 PMYou wrote that "We know that Bush was treated for a gunshot wound, and that Forde was with him . . . [presumably at the murder scene]."
The "News Reports" didn't make that statement.
If you know it is true, fine . . . she's more than likely guilty.
Why quibble with me when I am agreeing with you?
Amused: no, I said nothing about the murder scene. The obvious (to me) implication of what I wrote is that she was with him when he was "treated for a gunshot wound."
And the news reports did include this information: look for reports that mention Chuck Stonex. For example, "[Stonex] said Forde called him on the day of the attack while he was visiting Arizona and asked him to bring bandages to an Arivaca home because Bush had been wounded. Stonex said it appeared Bush had a relatively minor gunshot wound, which he treated."
He is being tried for felony money-laundering charges.
But what is more important is that Republican voters are much less likely to vote for a corrupt person (or perceived party) than Democratic voters. Corruption has been endemic to the Democrats for our entire lives. Democratic voters don't care. Republican voters often do, and this -- combined with the GOP failures on spending, and on certain libertarian issues, and immigration -- made a lot of conservative voters simply not vote, or vote for Democrats just to punish the GOP, knowing full well the Democrats are even worse from their own perspective. But better to have a clear enemy before you than an enemy posing as an ally.
Typical, resorting to accusations with no evidence! Right, democrats totally accept corruption left and right. That's why Pelosi and Byrd have been indicted.
DeLay and Stevens were widely suspected to be corrupt politicians long before their criminal problems. The Speaker of the House and the longest-sitting Senator were corrupt, and voters kept on voting for them, because he brought home the pork. That isn't the conservatives actively looking for avoid the appearance of corruption.
To make this a GOP/Democrat issue is truly naive. Corrupt politicians sometimes make it far in life, regardless of their party. The GOP was able to have more corruption because it was both a bigger party and it had significantly more power -- why bribe the minority?
It's laughable to say that the GOP is well above corruption less than three years that they were ousted out of power primarily because of the appearance of corruption.
If you want to be stubborn about it, say that Cunningham and Nye and Abramoff didn't happen, awesome! The voters are stupid sheep! And DeLay and Stevens were totally thrown overboard after many years of re-election campaigns and calling their investigators political henchmen. And Scooter Libby was innocent because he was a friend of Bush and Cheney even if he was found guilty. And Craig wasn't a hypocrite on gay rights. And Foley and Vitter and Ensign weren't hypocrites on Clinton. Right, right, right, the decent GOP and it's never-ending parade of completely perfect politicians!
You are in the awkward position of having to defend politicians.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 12:51 PMAt #22 referring to my post about Ted Stevens exoneration for federal corruption convictions you wrote that
[n]o, Amused, it was not dropped due to lack of evidence, it was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution. There was plenty of actual evidence.
You may be correct (I don't think so) but your argument is against Stevens' lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and the media that reported the issue . . . not me.
I stated clearly that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted, and then quoted verbatim in my post that "Not only did the government fail to provide evidence to the defense that the law requires them to provide, but they created false testimony that they gave us and actually presented false testimony in the courtroom," he said. This was a quote from Stevens' lawyer, Brendan Sullivan in a CNN article at
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/stevens.case.dropped/index.html
Granted CNN is a poor source of hard news so let's look at what the Wall street Journal reported on the same issue;
"The previously undisclosed issue about the April 15 notes joins a catalog of errors and alleged misconduct on the part of prosecutors. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan repeatedly chastised the government for withholding information favorable to the defense and introducing other evidence that it knew to be false." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/stevens.case.dropped/index.html
The report further states "The department's Office of Professional Responsibility is conducting an investigation into the conduct of prosecutors involved in the case. It is unclear how many prosecutors are under review. Already Judge Sullivan has held three department officials in contempt, including two in the public-integrity section, which handled the case, and another in the appellate section, for failing to turn over internal communications in connection with a whistleblower complaint about the case from a Federal Bureau of Investigations agent."
Your contention that the case against Ted Stevens "was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution," and not due to the prosecution's failure to provide all relevant evidence and introducing false evidence, fails the facts test. While there may have been plenty of evidence, it is pretty clear from the record that most of the admissible evidence would have acquitted rather than convicted Stevens.
At any rate it is more likely than not that Ted Stevens was prosecuted for political reasons and not for wrong-doing.
Thanks
Fair enough.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 17, 2009 01:17 PMYes. Simply saying so does not imply it isn't completely non-serious.
Typical, resorting to accusations with no evidence!
Yes, that is typical of you: hence your allegations against DeLay and Hastert.
Right, democrats totally accept corruption left and right.
Yes.
That's why Pelosi and Byrd have been indicted.
Wow, you think proof of non-indictment is proof of non-corruption? And you dare call OTHER people naive?
DeLay and Stevens were widely suspected to be corrupt politicians long before their criminal problems.
Typical, resorting to accusations with no evidence!
The Speaker of the House and the longest-sitting Senator were corrupt
Pssssst: DeLay was never Speaker.
That isn't the conservatives actively looking for avoid the appearance of corruption.
It should be obvious, but I just want to point out that you are still, at this point in your argument, resorting to accusations with no evidence.
To make this a GOP/Democrat issue is truly naive.
Exactly. So you therefore agree that the poll you cite show many people naively believed the claim by the Democrats and much of the media that the GOP was a party of corruption.
The GOP was able to have more corruption ...
No, it wasn't.
It's laughable to say that the GOP is well above corruption
I didn't say that. I did say the GOP is far less tolerant of corruption and wrongdoing in their midst.
... less than three years that they were ousted out of power primarily because of the appearance of corruption.
... which, as you point out, was naive of the electorate.
If you want to be stubborn about it, say that Cunningham and Nye and Abramoff didn't happen
Why would I say that?
The voters are stupid sheep!
Shrug, YOU called them "naive."
And DeLay and Stevens were totally thrown overboard after many years of re-election campaigns and calling their investigators political henchmen
Again, you are resorting to accusations without evidence. (As is typical with you.)
And Scooter Libby was innocent because he was a friend of Bush and Cheney even if he was found guilty.
I never implied any such thing, of course.
And Craig wasn't a hypocrite on gay rights
I know of no evidence he was a hypocrite. That's like saying Obama is a hypocrite because he smokes, yet he'll sign this massive anti-smoking legislation. Some people would say Obama is hypocritical; I don't. Just because you do something doesn't mean you can't also be against it. Maybe he is a hypocrite, but I have no idea, that's only for him to decide for himself.
And Foley and Vitter and Ensign weren't hypocrites on Clinton.
Again, hypocrisy is not as simple as doing what you condemn. Further, I don't know the nature of their condemnation: certainly, Clinton did some things Ensign and Vitter did not (as far as I know), specifically: having an affair with a person whom you have great power over (being a much younger employee); having sex in the Oval Office; and lying under oath about it.
If their criticisms were limited to those special circumstances, then a charge of hypocrisy might make no sense anyway.
What really bothers me about these claims of hypocrisy, other than the fact that they often are misapplied ("they both had affairs, and he attacked Clinton for lying under oath about his affair, so he's a hypocrite!") and don't take into consideration that the person might actually be against what they are doing (as Obama is against smoking, apparently), is that the crime is often seen as somehow less serious than the hypocrisy.
To wit: (my former Congressman) Gerry Studds committed a much more serious offense (as best I can tell) than Mark Foley. He actually had a sexual affair with a minor page. Foley, to my understanding, did not. But because Studds was not a "hypocrite," he will not be remembered with nearly the same vitriol as Foley, despite committing a much worse offense.
Right, right, right, the decent GOP and it's never-ending parade of completely perfect politicians!
Straw man. No one ever implied any such thing.
You are in the awkward position of having to defend politicians.
I am never in such an awkward position, as I work to defend truth, instead. So in the same post I can both defend DeLay and express my distaste for him; I can say Libby seems innocent to me and that he should not have had his sentence commuted; etc. Nothing awkward here for me at all. Note I also said, before you did, that Stevens' dismissal of charges was not warranted based on the evidence but on error of the prosecution. No skin off my nose, I just stick to the facts here.
I take the same tack with Forde. Whether she is guilty or innocent, I just want to let the facts fall where they may. So I took exception at people jumping to conclusions about her perpetrating a hoax last December, just as I take exception to the Herald trying to link this to a wave of "rightwing extremism." These are not facts; they distract from facts.
My argument is for the truth. And the truth is that Stevens' case WAS NOT dropped due to lack of evidence, but due entirely to prosecutorial misconduct.
I stated clearly that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted
Which is not true (unless you mean that the prosecution provided false evidence; I took it to mean he was prosecuted for something he did not do, which there is no evidence to support).
Your contention that the case against Ted Stevens "was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution," and not due to the prosecution's failure to provide all relevant evidence and introducing false evidence, fails the facts test.
Um. Do you not know what "malfeasance" means? The fact of "the prosecution's failure to provide all relevant evidence and introducing false evidence" is precisely what I meant by "malfeasance." What you said there is not different from what I said, just more specific, so I have no idea what you think you meant by saying that my remarks "fail the facts test."
While there may have been plenty of evidence, it is pretty clear from the record that most of the admissible evidence would have acquitted rather than convicted Stevens.
That is completely false. The court did not say that at all, in any way whatsoever. The court only said that the evidence COULD have led to a not-guilty verdict, not implying at all that it WOULD have.
At any rate it is more likely than not that Ted Stevens was prosecuted for political reasons and not for wrong-doing.
No, it is not likely at all. What is likely is that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by something other than a quest for legal justice, and could have been political (or based on other ulterior motivations). But there's no evidence the indictment itself, or the fact of the prosecution, was politically motivated.
Seeing law enforcement looking the other way at the illegals and the drugs could flip a switch on an unbalanced person. Enough so, that she could go 'Dirty Harry" and take matters into her own hands. Ergo, the robbery gone bad of the purported drug dealer and mafioso. But the kid? Why the kid?
After the incidents last winter, I can definitely see paranoid schizophrenia in her.
Posted by: swatter on June 17, 2009 01:40 PMI was arguing that a statement like "conservatism (quite unlike liberalism) is inherently anti-criminal and won't tolerate even the appearance of it" is just foolish to make given that the both corruption convictions and the appearance of it led directly to the 2006 mid-term results.
Vitter unquestionably broke the law by sleeping with a prostitute. Clearly, the GOP does tolerate him -- despite being inherently anti-criminal. By declaring superficial moral high grounds, as Amused did, one loses a clear reflection of reality. Or, as you put it, the truth.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 01:52 PMWatergate clearly showed the differences between the parties. If Richard Nixon had used the sort of tactics Bill Clinton later used he may have stayed in office and been vindicated even though he was wrong. Hillary later avoided pitfalls Nixon became caught up in from lessons learned when she assisted in the Watergate Hearings. The public view of "Criminality" is often more about appearances than facts and Nixon appeared shady.
Republicans gave Nixon the boot because they did not want to be associated with impeachment and his criminal actions. Today liberals accuse Nixon of many things he never did because they are unwilling to accept simple manifest facts on their own merit.
The conflation of Bill Clinton's criminal acts with Sex is a prime example of the disparity. Democrats act as though rascally sex antics in the white house cannot also be criminal acts when they involve lies to grand juries, cover-ups, and witness tampering. If Nixon had been caught involved in sex with an intern, the liberals would have insisted he be summarily hanged. On the other hand, had Clinton simply told the truth about Lewinsky, the whole issue would have gone away.
Instead liberals purport to believe that an after the fact cover up of a third rate burglary was worse than a cover up and perjury over an illicit affair with an intern. Both were criminal acts, and while the Republican leadership effectively removed Nixon from office, in contrast on the afternoon that the House passed its articles of impeachment, Gore told a rally of House Democrats and the press on the White House Lawn that Clinton would be remembered by history as "one of our greatest presidents."
I agree that Scooter Libby should have been exonerated by GW Bush but even this shows that Republicans hold their own to a high standard. Bush respected the law even when it was applied unfairly. Watch and see if Obama does the same in 2012 when he is voted out of office. Of course when you have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans, the fair is never fair.
If Shawna Forde is guilty of any criminal act she should be convicted and punished regardless what party she votes with.
Just for clarification, not according to the legal system he did not break the law, since the statute of limitations has run out and he can't be prosecuted. But, yes.
Clearly, the GOP does tolerate him
"Clearly"? Where do you get that from? I suspect he may not be re-nominated. Perhaps you are referring to the notion that they didn't force him out, probably in part because a Democrat would replace him if that happened, and that's fine, but he's still on the outs.
My comment: You may be correct (I don't think so) but your argument is against Stevens' lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and the media that reported the issue . . . not me.
Pudge Answer: My argument is for the truth. And the truth is that Stevens' case WAS NOT dropped due to lack of evidence, but due entirely to prosecutorial misconduct.
Your argument may be for the truth, but it failed because you attacked the content of a news article not my statement. I never stated that the case was dropped due to lack of evidence. This is not seeking truth but inapt caviling with the facts.
My Comment: I stated clearly that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted
Pudge Answer: Which is not true (unless you mean that the prosecution provided false evidence; I took it to mean he was prosecuted for something he did not do, which there is no evidence to support).
It is true BECAUSE the prosecution provided false evidence. Come on Pudge.
My Statement: Your contention that the case against Ted Stevens "was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution," and not due to the prosecution's failure to provide all relevant evidence and introducing false evidence, fails the facts test.
Pudge Answer: Um. Do you not know what "malfeasance" means? The fact of "the prosecution's failure to provide all relevant evidence and introducing false evidence" is precisely what I meant by "malfeasance." What you said there is not different from what I said, just more specific, so I have no idea what you think you meant by saying that my remarks "fail the facts test."
Facts are facts. Since you wish to be overly pedantic, I reply in kind. Do you know what incompetence means? Nowhere is the word "incompetence" included in the courts statement, nor is there any evidence of incompetence. Earlier you said the Stevens' case was dropped entirely due to prosecutorial misconduct. Which is it now, incompetence or misconduct. You attacked the substance of news articles and the statements of others. Being wrong doesn't sit well at all with you does it?
My Comment: While there may have been plenty of evidence, it is pretty clear from the record that most of the admissible evidence would have acquitted rather than convicted Stevens.
Pudge answer: That is completely false. The court did not say that at all, in any way whatsoever. The court only said that the evidence COULD have led to a not-guilty verdict, not implying at all that it WOULD have.
I never claimed that the court said that the admissible evidence would have acquitted rather than convicted Stevens. Your entire reformulation of my statement may be false, but my statement is true. Which to you propose to argue with, me or your own misstatements?
My comment: At any rate it is more likely than not that Ted Stevens was prosecuted for political reasons and not for wrong-doing.
Pudge Answer: No, it is not likely at all. What is likely is that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by something other than a quest for legal justice, and could have been political (or based on other ulterior motivations). But there's no evidence the indictment itself, or the fact of the prosecution, was politically motivated.
Completely wrong again.
It is far far more likely that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by partisan politics especially seeing as how the timing of the indictment defeated Stevens re-election bid and the prosecutor who brought the case to court is a hyper-partisan Democrat now under special investigation for prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens case. Liberal Democrat Prosecutor Brenda Morris was a supervisor of the Scooter Libby prosecution team. She was trained in the office of legendary New York District Attorney (Democrat) Henry Morgenthau. Ever heard of Morgenthau?? No political possibilities there eh? http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/04/10/who-is-brenda-morris.php
You do like to argue don't you?
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 17, 2009 03:14 PMEither way conservatives have always been ready to turn away from criminals within their ranks when they are found, because conservatism (quite unlike liberalism) is inherently anti-criminal and won't tolerate even the appearance of it.
You may not like it John, but as far as history and historical reality is concerned, this statement is true. The difference is how corruption in each party is perceived, or better yet, framed by the press in presenting it for public consumption. Republican's found to even have a hint of impropriety are hounded relentlessly until usually, they bow out to save face for the party (Lott) or are outright bounced from the party. Democrats are not only much less likely to do the honorable thing (Blago comes to mind), they'll fight till their dying breath that they've "done nothing wrong" despite evidence presented to the contrary. They're also not pursued by the mainstream media (Murtha) to the extent that Republicans are so they're largely given a 'pass' because it falls off the pages of the "news". Nothing to see here folks, move along now.
I found an interesting piece from Jan.2008 where judicial watch came out with their "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2007" list.
Now, if you would kindly review this list and report back to us exactly how many Republican's on this list are currently serving our party? Could you also list how many Democrat's you see that are not only still serving in their party, but are in leadership positions?
Identity politics has its priveleges.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 03:15 PMExcept Sen. David Vitter, Rep. Jerry Lewis, and Rep. Don Young, right?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 03:32 PMUnlike Liberal Democrats I spend much more of my time reading legitimate books and reliable sources of information. From the substance of your contributions, it is clear that you would do well to read more serious history, and evaluate politics from a broader less partisan perspective. While I don't doubt your sincerity you lack the sophisticated introspection that could come from reading more in depth.
What you believe about me or my bona fides is irrelevant but if you read some serious materials on the subject of Watergate and Nixon, you will look at the situation differently. While I don't claim that he was an honest man, his image has been made into a cardboard cut-out by the left, and no one can learn anything useful from a one dimensional character produced by partisan vitriol.
While you may still believe as you do, it will mentally equip you and support your ideas with more than "Wikipedia (schlock from others)." It will also make for interesting discussions because you will come up with some challenging ideas instead of mostly empty and silly talking points.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 17, 2009 03:33 PMDo you really think Clinton should have been thrown out of office?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 03:55 PMPlease, save it. I was not trying to prove YOU were wrong. This is not about YOU. Who made the statements you posted is of no relevance.
Further, you did make incorrect statements, as I pointed out. Your statement that "Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing" is false, as is your claim that he was "falsely prosecuted," as the prosecution was perfectly justified (but wrongly conducted).
It is true BECAUSE the prosecution provided false evidence.
No, it's not. The obvious and normal implication of "false prosecution" is that the case itself has no merit. That's not the case here. False prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct are two different things.
Facts are facts.
Um, yes, and the fact is that you said my claim that the case was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance of the prosecution was false. And the fact is that you agreed with this claim.
Since you wish to be overly pedantic
Not remotely.
Nowhere is the word "incompetence" included in the courts statement
You say this as though it is a meaningful point. It's not. My analysis is incompetence.
nor is there any evidence of incompetence
Then you don't know the case well ... which is unsurprising, since you incorrectly claimed that Stevens was cleared of wrongdoing.
EITHER, the prosecution made evidentiary mistakes due to significant incompetence, OR, when they intentionally violated the rules, they did it so incompetently that they were easily (and inevitably) discovered following the trial.
So yes, there's plenty of evidence of incompetence, and it was a cause for the overturning of the conviction and the dropping of the case, one way or the other.
Which is it now, incompetence or misconduct.
As noted above: both. Misconduct was the legal reason, but incompetence was an essential factor.
Being wrong doesn't sit well at all with you does it?
Shrug. You have not identified a single instance of me being wrong.
I never claimed that the court said that the admissible evidence would have acquitted rather than convicted Stevens.
I never claimed you said the court said that. YOU said that, not the court. And you completely made it up. My noting that the court didn't say it was me providing some evidence that you completely made it up.
my statement is true
No, it's not. There's no truth in it. You have no basis of any kind for saying the evidence would have caused him to be acquitted. You made it up.
Completely wrong again.
Then prove it.
It is far far more likely that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by partisan politics ...
That is literally impossible. I said, it is likely the method employed by the prosecution had motivations that could have been political. You said it is MORE likely that the methods employed by the prosecution had motivations that were political. That is not possible. They are of equal liklihood because they are the exact same thing.
Agreeing with me is not proving me wrong, you see.
You need to stop, Amused, and read and think before you post.
Like I said, history isn't on your side when it comes to "accepted political corruption" by the two major parties. But you alread knew that.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 04:04 PMhttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/080111
Now, if you would kindly review this list and report back to us exactly how many Republican's on this list are currently serving our party?
No Republicans on that list are currently elected officials.
Could you also list how many Democrat's you see that are not only still serving in their party, but are in leadership positions?
Senator Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama are all on that list. While a leader in the Senate, the powerful Senator Diane Feinstein also shows up. Finally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- though no longer an elected official -- also appears on that list.
Any other questions I can answer for you?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 04:20 PMNot that I am really following along at this point ...
Meaningless.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 17, 2009 06:49 PMOnly to an imbecile or an ideologue, or some combination of the two.
Judicial watch's 2006 list is just as damning in highlighting the hypocrisy on the left compared to the right when it comes to scandals/ corruption with respect to sustained political life expectancy when/if they're ever exposed to the light of day. This is just common sense to many of us that have been around the block a time or two, but hey, It's a new generation out there today. They're not interested in facts, just promoting the flavor of the month in identity politics.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2009 08:14 PMRefusing to admit when you are wrong is not the same as being right. My statement that "Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing" is factually correct. He cannot be tried again over the same issues. In any rational person's book, that's fairly characterized as "cleared of wrong-doing." Maybe you would have Ted Stevens water-boarded or summoned by ancient wizards to a Black moon? Come off it.
Nevertheless, either way, you have proven that you don't know nearly as much as you would have others believe. The outcome of the prosecution and the reasons that have been given for it is a matter of public record and if you wish to disagree with that, fine. The outcome is dismissal with prejudice and ongoing investigations for prosecutorial misconduct. The mere fact that the court dismissed the indictment with prejudice is enough to say accurately that Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing.
When I stated that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted, I was completely correct and the record proves it. The difference between False Prosecution and Prosecutorial Misconduct is beside the point.
Further, I never agreed with your claim that the case was dropped due to incompetence and malfeasance and the fact that the word "incompetence" is not included in the record is far more meaningful than a baseless half-baked analysis by you. Your claim that incompetence is a factor in the ongoing investigation because it was not a part of the record is blatantly false. Who's making things up? Wise up. You are wrong and you can't admit it.
You wrote that "It is possible that EITHER, the prosecution made evidentiary mistakes due to significant incompetence, OR, when they intentionally violated the rules, they did it so incompetently that they were easily (and inevitably) discovered following the trial." It is also possible (but not likely) that little green men from Mars tampered with the evidence. However, this is not analysis, but baseless and silly speculation that ignores the salient facts. There is no evidence that incompetence was an essential factor let alone any factor.
There is significant evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated and as a result, investigations are in process to find the facts. Deny it with something more than petty niggling tactics or fold your tent because that is all that matters to this discussion.
Your claim that my response was literally impossible is silly. You stated that "What is likely is that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by something other than a quest for legal justice, and could have been political (or based on other ulterior motivations). But there's no evidence the indictment itself, or the fact of the prosecution, was politically motivated." I responded that "It is far far more likely that the METHODS EMPLOYED by the prosecution were motivated by partisan politics."The sloppy rambling formulation of your statement and your selective interpretation is not a flaw of my response but the product of your intellectual dishonesty.
Do you know what the word "Pedantic" means? Your comments are just as vulnerable to picky caviling pettifoggery as mine but I don't waste time with it.
Instead of wasting time with simplistic hairsplitting you should read fairly and be honest.
Otherwise (as in this case) you will nearly always be wrong.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 17, 2009 08:30 PMAmused - you got one thing right (well two if you include the fact that leftists are irresistibly drawn to corruption and misfortune) - and that is that pudge guy sure likes to argue!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 17, 2009 10:07 PMMy statement that "Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing" is factually correct.
Nope. Not a single fact backs up that erroneous claim. Dropping charges is not at all the same as being cleared of wrongdoing. He absolutely was not cleared of wrongdoing. Period.
He cannot be tried again over the same issues.
True.
In any rational person's book, that's fairly characterized as "cleared of wrong-doing."
False. This has never and will never be true. No rational person accepts a dropping of charges due to prosecutorial misconduct as anything remotely similar to being cleared of wrongdoing.
In your book, for example, OJ Simpsons was cleared of any wrongdoing. Sorry, but no rational person believes that. Having charges dropped or even being acquitted is not being cleared. You're wrong.
The outcome of the prosecution and the reasons that have been given for it is a matter of public record
Except that you already agreed that this public record DOES NOT agree with you that he was cleared of wrongdoing. I am not the one disagreeing with the public record ... you are.
When I stated that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted, I was completely correct and the record proves it. The difference between False Prosecution and Prosecutorial Misconduct is beside the point.
Ummmmm ... no. It isn't. It's the difference between the motive of prosection, and the conduct of the prosecutors. They are separate, and there's no serious evidence the prosecution was started for political reasons.
Your claim that incompetence is a factor in the ongoing investigation ...
Please do not lie about what I said. Thanks. I, of course, never said any such thing.
Who's making things up?
You (to wit, what you said just above).
However, this is not analysis, but baseless and silly speculation that ignores the salient facts.
Ummmm ... no. Dude. All I said was that either they were incompetent and screwed up the evidence because of it, or they were incompetent in how they intentionally screwed up the evidence. This is obvious fact. Either they intended to screw up the evidence or they didn't, and in either case, incompetence was a factor.
This is not controversial except in your mind. And it's not even important, since -- despite your falsehood -- I never said it had anything to do with any investigation of wrongdoing. All I said is that it was a cause of the situation that led to the dismissal.
Your claim that my response was literally impossible is silly.
If you think so, then you didn't understand the claim. I'll try again, using math. I said A. You said A. You said A is more likely than A. This is, of course, literally impossible, since A cannot be more likely than A, as it is always exactly equal in probability to A.
Otherwise (as in this case) you will nearly always be wrong.
Shrug. You didn't give a single example of me being wrong.
Oh, and thank you for making my point. I offered an opinion based on personal observation. I rendered my opinion without vitriol or insult.
You respond with a snarky and gratuitous insult. Your knee-jerk flailing about and attacking everyone in every thread and at every opportunity - including your erstwhile allies makes you the lesser man and this site suffers for it.
Grow up pudge.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 17, 2009 11:08 PMNo rational person believes that OJ was "cleared of any wrong-doing"?
What system of justice are you describing? Our system doesn't "clear you" of charges - it either finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.
If you want to equate a verdict of "not guilty" as being the same as being "cleared" then you have to rationally conclude that our system of justice determined that OJ was "cleared of any wrong-doing".
I don't see any reason to equate the two as you are doing. In OJ's case reasonable people can believe him to be guilty of the crime he was accused. Our justice system simply didn't prove it to the satisfaction of the jury. So, the system didn't find him guilty, no more, no less.
No one is ever even found "innocent" in our system of justice, they're just found "not guilty".
You're clearer on the facts surrounding the Steven's trial, the OJ example isn't such sharp thinking.
Posted by: BA on June 17, 2009 11:11 PM
I rendered my opinion without vitriol or insult.
Shrug. Everyone can read your comment for themselves, no need to lie about it.
If you read my posts more carefully, you'll see that my point is that I agree with what you said, that our system of justice does not clear you of wrongdoing even if the outcome is favorable to you. The OJ example was intended to illustrate that.
BA: You may want to read up on how the civil proceedings that followed the criminal proceedings played out before making that statement.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 18, 2009 06:19 AMPudge - I was speaking directly about your example of OJ and the notion of being "cleared of charges". It seems to be common to equate being found "not guilty" with "innocent" with "cleared". They are all different.
Posted by: BA on June 18, 2009 06:26 AMpudge's posts brings up the hits though.
Fan, try the sidebar on the side. Many of the posters there aren't the active (prolific) ones on the main page. That is, if one of the moderators don't delete posts there.
Posted by: swatter on June 18, 2009 07:15 AMYes. That is what I said. You are not disagreeing with me, try as you might.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2009 07:51 AMYet you drone on "Nope. Not a single fact backs up that erroneous claim. Dropping charges is not at all the same as being cleared of wrongdoing. He absolutely was not cleared of wrongdoing. Period." Silly.
My Comment: In any rational person's book, that's fairly characterized as "cleared of wrong-doing."
Pudges Answer: "False. This has never and will never be true. No rational person accepts a dropping of charges due to prosecutorial misconduct as anything remotely similar to being cleared of wrongdoing. In your book, for example, OJ Simpsons was cleared of any wrongdoing. Sorry, but no rational person believes that. Having charges dropped or even being acquitted is not being cleared. You're wrong."
Pudge, again you are quite confused. I don't claim Stevens was innocent (for whatever that might mean) though he probably was. In my book, (the U.S Constitution) being cleared of all wrong doing means no longer having charges of wrong doing against one. That's the same book our American system of jurisprudence uses. Presumably you argue for vague metaphysical certainties (insipid rhetorical distinctions), or some sort of theoretic or divine absolution, when I argue for the commonplace truth. Thank God and our Founding fathers that the American jurisprudence system rationally accepts that the dismissal of charges with prejudice (because it means one cannot be tried again over a given claim) constitutes being cleared of wrongdoing concerning that claim.
Thanks, your OJ Simpson example is perfect. Being cleared of charges and innocent are different things. The difference is not so subtle that even you might possibly comprehend it. OJ Simpson was not cleared of wrong doing when he was found civilly responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Had Simpson won the civil suit, he would have certainly been cleared of wrong doing; I would be angry that he was guilty (as I believed he was) and got away with it, but nevertheless he would have been cleared of wrong-doing. Whether you or I believe he is cleared of anything has nothing to do with it because our beliefs are not the issue.
You look more obdurately foolish each time you post. Why not think before you write.
My Comment: The outcome of the prosecution and the reasons that have been given for it is a matter of public record
Pudge wrote: Except that you already agreed that this public record DOES NOT agree with you that he was cleared of wrongdoing. I am not the one disagreeing with the public record ... you are.
You are simply grasping at straws by making claims that are unsupported by anything. There is no need to respond except to observe that you are all tactics and no arguments.
My comment "When I stated that Ted Stevens was falsely prosecuted, I was completely correct and the record proves it. The difference between False Prosecution and Prosecutorial Misconduct is beside the point.
Pudge answers: Ummmmm ... no. It isn't. It's the difference between the motive of prosection, and the conduct of the prosecutors. They are separate, and there's no serious evidence the prosecution was started for political reasons.
Ummmmm ... O.K., argue your non-sequitur all day long, it is still beside the point. There is all of the circumstantial and direct evidence anyone could ever wish-for that the prosecution was started for political reasons. The fact that you systematically ignore it doesn't mean it isn't true. This is only your mere opinion based on stubbornness and your pretense of certainty in substitution for facts.
Your speculation that the prosecution of Ted Stevens was motivated by simple incompetence is ridiculous when viewed in context with the surrounding circumstantial facts.
Given the timing of the indictment which defeated Republican Stevens' re-election bid and the fact that the prosecutor who brought the case to court is a hyper-partisan Liberal Democrat now under special investigation for prosecutorial misconduct, your claim is comically absurd. Liberal Democrat Prosecutor Brenda Morris was a supervisor of the Scooter Libby prosecution team who was trained in the office of legendary New York District Attorney (rabid liberal Democrat) Henry Morgenthau. In the national struggle for control of our government by liberals, this was almost certainly another in a series of politically charged prosecutions against Republicans to seize power. Your ignoring it will not make it disappear.
Rather than resorting to the "lie" option I will simply state again that your zeal be right has left you badly confused. I COMMENTED EARLIER THAT Your claim that incompetence is a factor in the ongoing investigation ..., AND YOU RESPONDED Please do not lie about what I said. Thanks. I, of course, never said any such thing.
Pudge, at #44 line # 17 you wrote "As noted above: both. Misconduct was the legal reason, but incompetence was an essential factor. You are grasping at straws because you cannot stand to be shown as wrong. You said at # 31 line 2 that "My argument is for the truth. What happened to that?
If you had any proof that "incompetence was an essential factor" in the case you would have provided it by now. Your analysis supporting "incompetence" was and is an empty meaningless diversion. What is notable is that you characterize everything I say as falsehoods when you used falsehoods liberally and carelessly yourself. All you have left is to re-formulate my comments falsely and then knock them down. You are a troll on your own post.
Ted Steven was cleared of any wrongdoing and the prosecutors are being investigated for prosecutorial misconduct. Torturing the facts with tactical evasions, ad hominem attacks, pil pul and bullshit doesn't change those facts.
Keep shrugging pal. So long as you use such tactics (as in this case) you will continue to be wrong.
My statement that "Ted Stevens was completely cleared of any wrong-doing" is factually correct.
No. In fact, it is absolutely false. I won't bother reading the rest of your post, since you can't even get that basic fact right.
Specifically, an argument ad hominem is a fallacy where an "attack against the man"
is used as a substitute for an otherwise legitimate argument.
Soup's characterization of you as a bumblebee was a simile and an accurate one at that.
His claim that "Pudge sure likes to argue" was a readily observable fact
and a completely legitimate claim.
Neither was argument ad hominem. Wise up.
You are wrong.
Apologize or be wrong again.
Specifically, an argument ad hominem is a fallacy where an "attack against the man" is used as a substitute for an otherwise legitimate argument.
Obviously.
Exactly like what you are doing now. You stopped lying about Stevens being cleared and are not attacking me instead.
The rest of us: Because it is as readily apparent as the bald spot on the top of your head.
(And please note that I still haven't resorted to any "non-fallacious substance", lies, or ad hominems. Why should I - I don't need to ;'}
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 18, 2009 08:18 PMI still haven't resorted to any "non-fallacious substance", lies, or ad hominems.
In fact, every one of your posts in this discussion is constituted of such.
Why should I - I don't need to
If you are implying you only would if you need to ... then I'm sorry, but you did, so the latter clause is therefore false.
If you are implying Ha! in the sense of what you mean and not the way it is used, sorry but you don't know what Ha! means. Therefore, ergo, because if it, as a result, and in consequence, you are wrong and therefore false. Why should I bother with you if you can't even get a basic Ha! right?
You can persist even after I prove that you are wrong wrong wrong but you are quite and erroneously and fallaciously incorrect, which makes your comments false. No reasonable person would agree with you and also BTW if you would simply stop lying with Ha!, you'd see that I am completely correct.
If you read my posts more carefully, you'll see that what you said, was daft, muddle headed, pettifogging, fallaciously ad hominem and inaccurately as well as completely and totally untrue not to speak of being wide of the mark, out to lunch, off the beam, full of it, foot in mouth, Joe Biden, one sandwich short of a picnic, and . . . well . . . let's face it shall we . . . seriously lacking in having rightness.
Wise up!
Posted by: Grudge on June 19, 2009 10:11 PMDon't need to be a practicing attorney here.
Just comment like pudge, reflexively dispute everything, then bullshit your way through with petty tactics.
Pudge learned everything he knows the reliable way, by talking.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 20, 2009 02:39 PM