ferdberfel 0 #1 October 27, 2008 Another Alaskan politician with serious ethical and legal issues is guilty as charged. What do the Rs make of this one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2 October 27, 2008 Well good for the Jury. Now both sides of the Isle should wake up and fly straight (doubtful I know). MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #3 October 27, 2008 Actually the R's turned him in themselves so you can't exactly criticize the R's for Stevens' antics. Now if we can get the D's to follow suit and both parties focus on cleaning up their own houses rather than pointing out how dirty their neighbor's house is....we might actually have a decent government.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #4 October 27, 2008 >Actually the R's turned him in themselves so you can't exactly criticize >the R's for Stevens' antics. Although I have a feeling that Palin will be hoping people forget about the Sarah-Ted Show (Steven's name for it, not mine.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #5 October 27, 2008 Quote What do the Rs make of this one? The Rennedys? I'm sure that the Rennedy family is drinking heavily somewhere around Martha's Vineyard. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 October 27, 2008 There goes his presumption of innocence. Fair game now. I'm pleased that we all refrained from assuming his guilt until after a court reached a verdict.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #7 October 27, 2008 QuoteI'm pleased that we all refrained from assuming his guilt until after a court reached a verdict. "You all" did? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2902104#2902104 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2958323#2958323Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #8 October 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm pleased that we all refrained from assuming his guilt until after a court reached a verdict. "You all" did? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2902104#2902104 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2958323#2958323 OK, one person assumed guilt in one thread. Who assumed Stevens to be guilty of a felony in the 2nd thread?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #9 October 27, 2008 At least he has that great massage chair, in which to relax and drift off into obscurity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #10 October 27, 2008 QuoteWho assumed Stevens to be guilty of a felony in the 2nd thread? Bashing someone before a conviction, which you don't like, is assuming guilt. Calling them corrupt, dirty, etc. The whole premise of the second thread is that he was one of the corrupt politicians before his conviction. Remember, you bash Bush. Bush has not been convicted of anything in a court of law. Without that conviction, he's completely innocent in your eyes, right?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #11 October 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteWho assumed Stevens to be guilty of a felony in the 2nd thread? Bashing someone before a conviction, which you don't like, is assuming guilt. Calling them corrupt, dirty, etc. The whole premise of the second thread is that he was one of the corrupt politicians before his conviction. Remember, you bash Bush. Bush has not been convicted of anything in a court of law. Without that conviction, he's completely innocent in your eyes, right? Bashing someone's policies is not the same as stating they are guilty of a felony. Find any post where I have prejudged a felony conviction, if you want to waste some time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #12 October 27, 2008 >Bashing someone before a conviction, which you don't like, is assuming guilt. Well, geez, since you have claimed that Obama "doesn't deserve to be in office" - what have you assumed him guilty of? This should be good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #13 October 27, 2008 QuoteBashing someone's policies is not the same as stating they are guilty of a felony. Find any post where I have prejudged a felony conviction, if you want to waste some time. You haven't said anything about perjury or something like that? I won't waste my time, but you have called him a liar many many times. How can you do that in good conscience without a conviction in a court of law? Harrible!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #14 October 27, 2008 Quote How can you do that in good conscience without a conviction in a court of law? Harrible! I don't know what that word means, but I like it. Gotta find a use for it in a sentence before end of day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #15 October 27, 2008 QuoteWell, geez, since you have claimed that Obama "doesn't deserve to be in office" - what have you assumed him guilty of? This should be good. What is good is that you've apparently missed that giant whoosh going over your head. I don't need a court to tell me when the dude on videotape is actually guilty of a crime, or that when a congressman has $50k in cash in a freezer that he's up to no good. Kallend repeatedly claims that we (paraphrasing) should all shut up until the court makes a ruling. I guess OJ really didn't do it then. And to your out of context quote... he voted for taxing profits of oil companies more, in spite of the fact that it would do NOTHING to lower prices and would in fact increase prices. Here's the quote for anyone who cares... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3236280#3236280Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #16 October 27, 2008 QuoteI don't know what that word means, but I like it. Gotta find a use for it in a sentence before end of day. A New York version of "horrible"... say it... it's fun!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #17 October 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, geez, since you have claimed that Obama "doesn't deserve to be in office" - what have you assumed him guilty of? This should be good. What is good is that you've apparently missed that giant whoosh going over your head. I don't need a court to tell me when the dude on videotape is actually guilty of a crime, or that when a congressman has $50k in cash in a freezer that he's up to no good. Kallend repeatedly claims that we (paraphrasing) should all shut up until the court makes a ruling. I guess OJ really didn't do it then. The concepts of due process of law, and innocent until found guilty seem to elude some people. They think torture and imprisonment without trial is the "Real American" ((C) 2008 S. Palin) Way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #18 October 27, 2008 > I don't need a court to tell me when the dude on videotape is actually guilty >of a crime, or that when a congressman has $50k in cash in a freezer that >he's up to no good. OK. So others should wait for the conviction; you know who's guilty right away once you see some video. Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #19 October 27, 2008 QuoteQuote How can you do that in good conscience without a conviction in a court of law? Harrible! I don't know what that word means, but I like it. Gotta find a use for it in a sentence before end of day. It's a familiar form of "Henryble" and "Haroldble".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #20 October 27, 2008 QuoteAnd to your out of context quote... he voted for taxing profits of oil companies more, in spite of the fact that it would do NOTHING to lower prices and would in fact increase prices. Here's the quote for anyone who cares... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3236280#3236280 I'm genuinely curious: does it matter to you (or anyone else who makes the same criticism) that Governor Palin did exactly that? It is entirely valid to prioritize other issues that may be seen as more important. From the Seattle Times: “Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry -- a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.” In August 2006, Palin passed legislation imposing a tax of 22.5% to oil companies in Alaska. In October 2007, she increased the tax to 25%. “‘By receiving an equitable share for our resources, we are now in a position to demand more accountability and seize opportunities to save for future generations,’ [Governor] Palin said in a statement released last December as she signed the next tax bill into law.” When I first cited this at the beginning of September, the "wealth redistribution" meme had not become viral. How is imposing a tax to enable the citizens of Alaska to "receiv[e] an equitable share for our resources" fundamentally different or more like that which has been so heavily criticized? Additionally, Governor Palin “raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline,” i.e., she transferred ownership from private entity to the State. Compare that to what was mentioned by Rep Maxine Waters said during Congressional hearing that garnered much vitriol – very similar. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #21 October 27, 2008 QuoteOK. So others should wait for the conviction; you know who's guilty right away once you see some video. Got it. So when a guy is caught in the act, you still think he's innocent? Here's one for you that may help you differentiate much of how you think vs how I think: People are innocent or guilty of a crime before a judge makes his decision. Or, do you not believe that innocent people can be FOUND guilty of crimes? Oh, okay, got it... so all that arguing about death penalties killing innocents was purely argumentative and you didn't really mean it. So are you for the death penalty now? I don't actually believe you reserve your judgement until a court makes a decision in every case, but you sure pretend to!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #22 October 27, 2008 QuoteI'm genuinely curious: does it matter to you (or anyone else who makes the same criticism) that Governor Palin did exactly that? It is entirely valid to prioritize other issues that may be seen as more important. Yeah, it does. Taxing corporations means the end consumers just fund the tax. It's not smart unless it's done honestly... meaning politicians say, "hey, we need money so we're gonna tax company profits," instead of pretending that some great social justice will be done by taxing profits. I think corporate taxes should be lowered to bring more business here. As for Palin's plan, it worked... FOR ALASKA. Why? Because the oil companies didn't only raise taxes IN Alaska. Don't confuse me with someone who will not criticize "their side".Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #23 October 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK. So others should wait for the conviction; you know who's guilty right away once you see some video. Got it. So when a guy is caught in the act, you still think he's innocent? ! Unless you were the eye witness (and eye witnesses are provably unreliable) how do you KNOW he was caught in the act. Witnesses are mistaken, witnesses lie, suspects make false confessions for various reasons, including being tortured (Google Jon Burge). THAT is why we have due process.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #24 October 28, 2008 Quote Quote I'm genuinely curious: does it matter to you (or anyone else who makes the same criticism) that Governor Palin did exactly that? It is entirely valid to prioritize other issues that may be seen as more important. Yeah, it does. Taxing corporations means the end consumers just fund the tax. It's not smart unless it's done honestly... meaning politicians say, "hey, we need money so we're gonna tax company profits," instead of pretending that some great social justice will be done by taxing profits. I think corporate taxes should be lowered to bring more business here. As for Palin's plan, it worked... FOR ALASKA. Why? Because the oil companies didn't only raise taxes IN Alaska. Don't confuse me with someone who will not criticize "their side". I think you've been out-Marg'd.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #25 October 28, 2008 QuoteUnless you were the eye witness (and eye witnesses are provably unreliable) how do you KNOW he was caught in the act. Witnesses are mistaken, witnesses lie, suspects make false confessions for various reasons, including being tortured (Google Jon Burge). THAT is why we have due process. So... I can't say anything unless I saw it, but if I DID see it, I'm highly likely to be wrong? Okay. So courts don't convict innocent people ever? The guy on trial didn't do it until the judge says he did? Guilty people never go free? At least I know now...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
