“Which leaves open the question” is a common form of speech to indicate that the matter is, well, open to question. Am I expected to supply proof that those firmly connected to powerful institutions are oftimes treated with special delicacy? This is news to you?
This is not a courtroom, I am not a lawyer, and the semantic gymnastics of legalism do not herein apply. I am not seeking to convict anyone of a crime, I am stating my opinion.
Is that a fact?
Who said that, then? Your corgi?
You’re not a lawyer, this isn’t a courtroom, so you’re free to argue that Law be arrested and tried even if there’s no actual law he broke, because, hey, court of public opinion! You’re no lawyer! You don’t have no observes any “technicalities!”
He didn’t say that, now did he, weasel? Here’s a hint: Nobody did.
Frank, if you have any facts or logic or arguments or anything of the sort to present, feel free. The repeated butthurt in lieu of that does not help you in anyway.
You’re both free to name names if you like. We’re all grownups here. Well, the rest of us are, anyway.
Didn’t say that. Can you quote where I said he should be arrested and tried? Then do so.
“Which leaves open the question” is generally dependent upon an argument based on evidence opposing the question. You’ve shown no such evidence. As to your question, who, specifically, that was involved in the AG report was firmly connected to Bernard Law?
Isn’t there some type of ‘aiding & abetting’ the commission of a felony statute that Cardinal Law broke?
(apologies if this has already been answered–scanned the thread & didn’t see)
I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate that my referring to the popes by their regnal names indicates my being an apologist of rapists and enablers. Shithead.
Your taking offense at that, while showing no interest in the actual rape victims, is sufficient evidence of your moral priorities.
Post 146.
You have stated that that is so. If you truly believe so, you’re insane; if not, you’re using it for political effect. You are, regardless, a shithead. Shithead.
When, precisely, did I indicate that I took offense at [referring to the popes by their family names]? I asked why you were doing it; you told me; I said that it inhibits communication. That’s offense? Shithead.
The indication of your moral priorities in this thread has not been overwhelmingly convincing. Shithead.
You’re a shithead. Shithead.
You seldom say anything directly. You mumble, “Well, hoss,” and talk about five cards being dealt to. Democrats, and this kind of obfuscation allows you to say all sorts of things while denying that you actually said them.
But you said that the report “leaves open the question.”
Now, if you were a conservative, you’d be torn to metaphorical shreds for “just asking questions.”
But since you’re a liberal, it’s all good.
And you cannot show where it is not the case. You did, however, seem to have learned a swear word back in fourth grade, but apparently only the one.
By even asking about it. :rolleyes:
Can you show us on this doll where the priest touched you?
Law could claim to have moved Father O’Reilly to another diocese so that he might be closer to his ailing grandmother and could go and sing “Toora-Loora-Loora” to her on a more regular basis. A prosecutor would be required to prove otherwise. Its not enough that it *looks *like he’s trying to help the priest get away with it, the law has to prove it.
Ah! So the reason you can’t actually quote me saying what you insist I said is liberal hypocrisy?
By even asking about it? When 99.99999% of the world refers to the popes by their regnal names, including the varieties of Orthodox Christians, Moslems, Jews, Zorostarianists, Shintoists, Bhuddists, Toaists, animasts and pagans, and heads of state around the world, my asking why you don’t indicates offense? You have shit for brains. Shithead.
Did it ever go before a grand jury? Or a jury?
From the little I know of this case, it seems that “proof” exists that he aided & abetted the commission of numerous felonies.
I’ve been thinking about this. I was raised Catholic, and was an altar boy, and did, until I discovered girls, consider the priesthood. I was never abused by a priest, nor was I abused by anyone connected with the Catholic church. Shithead.
I think it’s disgusting that you assume that all priests are sexual predators. Shithead.
You have to understand, Bricker’s so arrogant, he can’t imagine he loses arguments legitimately. So he *needs *the liberal conspiracy treating him badly to keep his delusions of adequacy.
Not all priests are pedophiles, certainly. But it’s a good place to work, if you are.