GostHacked Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 M. Dancer Let's get back to the topic, you have taken this off track far enough. I played into it as well. I am suck a sucker for trollers. American Woman Seems to me that when people don't have any answers to questions that are raised, and they can't just keep quiet, they have to accuse the person doing the questioning of being a conspiracy theorist nut job. Such an intelligent rebuttal is difficult to argue, eh? It also seems, that those people think that the tinfoil hat crowd should have the answers. When we don't. But we also realize that the official story does not make sense. This is why we are looking for those answers. Those people who scream TINFOIL HAT OMGWTFBBQ don't have the answeres either. Ivins is a person of conveinience for the FBI and CIA. Now that he is dead, the story can be anything the CIA and FBI want it to be. You think Ivines lawyer will make headway with the contradictions and discrepancies? I doubt it. If he has compelling evidence, will people like M. Dancer admit they were wrong? I know I can (and have) admited when I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) M. Dancer I am suck a sucker for trollers. You mean you are a sucker for toasters...and I'm not the one by the way, who brought up one million ficticious deaths in another country ....in other words, you are a selective sucker... Edited August 12, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 If he has compelling evidence, will people like M. Dancer admit they were wrong? I know I can (and have) admited when I was wrong. Wrong about what, exactly? Take you time with that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 You mean you are a sucker for toasters...and I'm not the one by the way, who brought up one million ficticious deaths in another country ....in other words, you are a selective sucker... So are you it seems. Get back on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 No story is perfect. But again, when obvious holes are discovered, why is it then a tinfoil hat thing, when it is obvious and right in front of your face? Because the tinfoil brigade has more holes than the government, often for the sake of just having holes (theories). The government has the extra burden of proving cases in court, instead of just using tinfoil at a barbecue. So, would you put a mentaly unstable person in a facility where he has access to the deadly anthrax? I mean, you already put one (or two) in the White House. SO I guess the answer is yes. I didn't put anyone in the White House, but America sure did. Crazy like a fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 Because the tinfoil brigade has more holes than the government, often for the sake of just having holes (theories). The government has the extra burden of proving cases in court, instead of just using tinfoil at a barbecue. When the government makes the charge, you are damn right they have the extra burden of proving the case in court. This is why they call it prosecution! This is also why they payed Hatfill a few million bucks. Good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 When the government makes the charge, you are damn right they have the extra burden of proving the case in court. This is why they call it prosecution! This is also why they payed Hatfill a few million bucks. Good job. You have it backwards....the government brings charges when evidence supports a prosecution...many charges are dropped for insufficient evidence. Maher Arar got twice as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 You have it backwards....the government brings charges when evidence supports a prosecution...many charges are dropped for insufficient evidence.Maher Arar got twice as much. Yep, Bin Ladens driver should be out soon. His bodyguard was set free because of insuffcient evidence. But there was enough evidence to hold those people indefinately at Gitmo. Guilty till proven innocent. Wow this sounds like the old USSR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Yep, Bin Ladens driver should be out soon. His bodyguard was set free because of insuffcient evidence. But there was enough evidence to hold those people indefinately at Gitmo. Guilty till proven innocent. Wow this sounds like the old USSR. Yep...just like Canadian Security Certificates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Yep...just like Canadian Security Certificates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.