For the millionth time, his refusal to deny it when directly asked, when all other candidates answered directly. His staff’s replying with carefully worded statements about what periods in time he’d have been able to pass an FBI security check. What would the stated answers have been if the truth was that he hadn’t? If the answer can’t be no, then it’s yes. Got it finally?
No, I don’t. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. That is the standard. I’ve never denied shooting ponies and eating them. That doesn’t mean I have, though.
If one doesn’t respond to baseless slander, especially if one feels it is not worthy of a response, one should not be required to do so. Nor should one’s refusal to do so imply guilt.
Sorry if this punches a hole in your convenient fiction.
Ah, the old, ‘In the absense of evidence, you must convict’ ploy. I like it!
This isn’t court, it’s politics. Tell us, do you apply your standard equally to members of both parties? You too, Brutus - keep on trusting Bush never to mislead you. :rolleyes:
You both know damn well what he and his staff said, and you know damn well there’s only one reasonable explanation. Now deal with it. I could have mentioned the Project PULL episode, ya know, but that has multiple possible reasonable explanations.
Just out of curiosity, here… are you claiming that it has never been PROVEN that W did coke? Or that you, yourself, honestly BELIEVE that he didn’t do coke?
Look at this discussion of the issue, for instance. Why on earth would his campaign clarify that he’d been drug-free since 1974 if he’d been drug-free his entire life? Why would he have said that he “made mistakes” when discussing drug use if he hadn’t? Do you honestly, truly, deep in your heart of hearts, believe that he never used illegal drugs? (The idea that it was cocaine comes, I assume, from an extrapolation of what drugs were popular back then.)
Anyhow, what bugs me about the near-certainty that W did coke is not that he did, it’s that he’s a hypocrite about it. Honestly, the fact that he used to be a druggy party boy and has now cleaned himself up and gotten straight is one of the few things that I quite honestly RESPECT about the man. But instead of taking advantage of that, and showing some compassion for people convicted of drug offenses, and treating them as people who need help to straighten out, not as criminals-who-support-terrorism, he’s just played along with the hard-right war-on-drugs three-strikes zero-tolerance lock-em-up policy.
And OJ didn’t kill his wife. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies to a court of law. Everyone is free to make up their own minds about things like whether W used coke, and many of us believe he did. We don’t claim we can PROVE it in a legal sense. But neither are we just making up random shit to defame W’s good nature.
First of all, I’m certainly not going to claim that no liberal person, in public life or on the SDMB, has ever been a hypocrite, or has ever attacked the right wing unfairly. But, there’s a HUGE difference here, which is that Anne Coulter writes and publishes entire BOOKS which make these hyperbolic, insulting claims, and the comment about “AWOL” was in a post on a message board.
Anne Coulter wrote a book called “Treason” accusing all liberals of being traitors. Until some equally prominent liberal writes a book called, say, “Rapists” about conservatives, I don’t see your comparison as being remotely valid.
And even ignoring the context of book vs. message board post, she says things that are hateful and shrill about HALF THE POPULATION OF THE US. Saying something mean and inaccurate about Bush, who is only one person, isn’t even remotely comparable. When liberals get upset (as happens) and start saying mean, condescending and insulting things about all Bush voters, all red-staters, all Christians, etc., then we’re at least getting into the ball park of Anne Coulter, but until they are so convinced that their ventings are true that they actually write a BOOK about them, we’re not there yet.
I don’t see why not. Sure, he’s an entertainer. Sure, he’s funny. Sure, he sometimes plays some tasteless pranks (like the one at Bob Jones), but he also has the capacity to feel guilty about them. Read the chapter about Bob Jones, and he makes it quite clear that he’s not necessarily proud of how he acted there.*
Most importantly, however, he’s a good writer who makes a convincing case. For instance, his book contained a very interesting piece about the Bush tax refund in which two women are discussing how the got $500 back from the government, but all the extra money they have to spend because various services and programs were cut. Now, you may or may not agree with his reasoning, opinions, or analysis, but he’s certainl putting effort into constructing a legitimate argument about a substantive issue. What’s not to respect?
(Also, as I said several posts back, you can bet your ass that after writing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, he has the best damn fact checking in the business.)
Oh, that makes it OK then. :rolleyes:
What if I refuse to answer your question? Should I deprive you of the joy you take in leaping to unsusbstantiated conclusions? But to answer your question: Yes. Don’t you?
I know no such thing. You apparently refuse to acknowledge my point that Bush and his staff may have been refusing to dignify a question based on a rumor with a response. But keep holding onto to that unproven assertion, Elvis! You apparently need it, and it obviously makes you very happy.
I am claiming (and I’m right) that it has never been PROVEN that our president used cocaine. I don’t know whether he did or not, but I need more than accusations before I infer guilt.
I looked at the discussion. Can you not see the president or his staff’s point?
Why respond to a rumor? It is incumbent upon those investigating someone to do a little work and get some proof before accusing someone of something, or at least it should be.
You certainly have that freedom. I also have the freedom to make up my own mind, and I have. As long as you realize what you have made up your mind about could be completely wrong, and don’t be surprised when everybody doesn’t agree with you (same for me, obviously).
YES!!! That’s my entire point! Don’t you???
Kindly read the rest of my post for the answer to your question.
Premature ejaculation makes the baby Jesus cry, Brutus
Only if it his him in the eye, though.
Regarding Al Franken…
You make good points, and replying mostly exposes my ignorance about Al Franken (beyond the fact that I know he’s a comedian with a fondness for targetting conservative pundits). I’m sure if I bothered to pay more attention to Franken that I might be more likely to take his political views seriously. I just don’t take him seriously in the sense that I take Ann Coulter seriously, i.e. as a demagogue directing hateful invective at vast swathes of the population.
You just won’t admit that you were wrong, huh?
I really don’t care what George put up his nose twenty years ago, but I feel compelled to point out that the Bush campaign did respond, and it is the evasive and heavily conditional nature of that response that raises so many eyebrows.
Yeah, Brutus, that’s totally it. Maybe I should become a Republican, huh? :rolleyes:
You’re right, he was wrong. You’d never think I’d agree to that did you?
I wasn’t out to win the argument as you so put, but merely stating the fact that there can be bad arguments from the otherside of the political field.
It was one of the worst things Moore said because it showed his lack of understanding to the Iraqi resistance and its motives, instead he found it too tempting so he could tarnish his arch enemy Bush&co, a cheap shot, and a cheap swipe at the Americans and Iraqis who are fighting for freedom there.
give it a rest, we clearly know you’re as biased as the rest of us. Dumbass.
Then why are you not spewing your shit at both of us, dickhead?
Yeah, great. It’s the worst thing he’s ever said. The point, dumbfuck, is that it isn’t even in the same league as the worst thing Ann Coulter has ever said. Do you get it now, or do you need someone to make you a chart?
Because he is a Libertarian too?