Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
If you were paying attention to the discussion, you would understand that this is not true. I have stated that if the released documents contain culpatory information, I would change my mind. My position of executive privilege holds true for other presidents as well. If we were talking about Tillman's death, you would be here accusing me of not changing my mind even if Bush was caught eating live babies.Actually, Neverwinter, you come across as someone who will not change their mind, even if Obama was caught eating live babies.
If I were on the jury, that is how it would work. I am not a lawyer, but the jury is supposed to make their decision based on the evidence admitted by the court not on external unvetted sources or their personal prejudices.Old Fuff said:If you were on a jury and knew that possibly important information had been withheld so you couldn't consider it, would you find the defendant guilty?
In this case it is the defendant who is withholding information, and then expects we will assume he is innocent.
Why do you expect people to decide what their opinion is, when they know that what they are being told is based entirely on selected evidence?
I expect people to make the best decision based on the available evidence, rather than clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing that they "know" to be true. You know, like a rational person.
My apologies for not double quoting so that you would understand the context of your quoted statement.danez71 said:The wink alludes to that you agree that this is all politically motivated and that it doesnt have anything to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
Care to confirm or deny?
It was in response to this: "This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections."
The quote from k_dawg illustrates the point that you were trying to refute.
Oh, and confirming that for some people it is all about politics and not about the truth. That much is apparent from unwillingness to visualize your opinion changing based on new evidence. It would not be responsible to take the words of forum members on here and extrapolate them to the general population, as you did with the statement regarding unanimous opinion.
It would have been irresponsible for Holder to point out all of the administration's opposition as being racist due to some racist elements being present.
And thank you for raising my hopes.Uh... I believe I was NOT reluctant to respond.
You have confused yourself on the logic here, which is understandable. If the question is "do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?", they saying Yes means that you always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. Saying No means that you do not always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. This could mean anywhere from one less than everytime to no times. A better question would have been "when did you stop picking your nose when kissing your girlfriend?"No. Besides being a GIANT leap of non-logic on your part, a sensible person cant answer 'yes' or 'no' because the question doesnt make sense to answer.That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?
You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.
Its like asking someone 'do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?' If cant answer yes for obvious reasons, and if you answer No, then it means that only only pick your nose sometimes when you kiss your girlfriend.
What you might have been thinking about is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which is loaded because either yes or no forces the responder to admit to having a wife and beating her.
A sensible person can say "no", because the accusatory presupposition isn't there. Deanimator, on the other hand, can't say "no" because it contradicts his stated opinion regarding executive privilege based guilt. Just because Deanimator has taken a position in which the sensible answer would be contradictory doesn't mean the question is loaded.
See response to DammitBoy for the refutation.Thats pretty much the pot calling the kettle black right there.At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.
I have directly said it two ways in this thread: with the legal opinion of an OSU law professor regarding deliberative executive privilege, and with a brief reminder of the history of Birther conspiracy theorists.....is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence.....
So... why dont let release the info that they are hiding?
You never have really directly said why they are choosing to hide the info instead of releasing it in order to make this a non-issue and put it behind them.
You might as well be asking me in the summer of 2008 about why they are chosing to hide the long form birth certificate to make it a non-issue and put it behind them.
If you're referring to the Feb 4, 2011 letter, that wasn't claiming that he put an end to the gun walking of the Bush era. That stopped before the last Bush AG left office. After writing the letter, the documents from the Congressional proceedings show that Holder emailed subordinates to check that gunwalking was not being performed. The proceedings also showed that the email responses were to the affirmative.Carl N. Brown said:Yes, there was gunwalking. Then Holder claimed he put an end to gunwalking while simultaneously claiming he did not know about it until after the operation had ended. And the great and wonderful wizard of Obama says there is no need to look behind the curtain. It is all just coincidence.
On the other hand, that would just be a trick because Holder would know that they would catch on to the gunwalking so he planned on having his subordinates lie to him to exonerate him from guilt. To consider otherwise, as the Great Vizzini would say, "Inconceivable!" (Also, "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!")