Bush Pardons Libby.

apollod said:
I didn't read the thread, mostly because everybody on TW are fucking morons.. but tell me what the fuck does the impeachment clause have to do with scooter libby?
Click to expand...

Tse Tse is just pointing out that triple doesn't have any clue what the clause means I believe
 
skip said:
triple wouldn't take bush's cock out of his mouth even if the guy raped his sister.
Click to expand...

TseTse said:
NO! Triple no longer supports Bush! :lol:
Click to expand...

triple said:
not on amnesty. that doesn't mean ive abandoned every single issue he stands for, you moron.
Click to expand...

I guess he didnt really mean to say this then...

triple said:
we gave up on bush
Click to expand...

Eager to hear him explain all the other issues he disagrees with BUsh on while also addressing the Buckley question.
 
NO, triple can be that stupid when defending Bush is at stake.

triple said:
article 2 section 2 doesn't count because it contradicts your argument, right?
Click to expand...

:lol:

I cited it because it SUPPORTS my argument, thanks. You were the one babbling about "rights" and other non-sense.

in fact, i asked you explicitly to address why that clause makes an exception for Impeachment and you'll probably never dare to do so. Just like you wont dare address the Buckley question.
 
yet you scoff at ron paul, the only real candidate who gives a shit about the constitution

and your only means of attacking is saying that he is unpopular, and the other candidates are more popular

in the same vein you say that just because lots of people agree with osama doesn't make him right

does this not make sense to you either?

(not trying to derail the thread, just pointing out that triple has a neocon dick shoved so far down his throat he can't see his own hypocrisy)
 
triple said:
"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind."

-Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...


basically, thats saying that the 'fellow-creature' cant be hold solely responsible for his actions because 'forces beyond his control' were impelling him towards unjust actions, aka he was 'following orders'

if thats an extenuating circumstance in the case of a subordinate, surely thats an indictment of those above him?

tse tse said it best, a secretary obstructing an investigation into the administration is at best implicating himself, and at worst imlpicating his superiors.

granted, that's some fucking flowery language up in there tho

'Justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel' :rofl:

'That would be cruel and bloody justice'

although I'd prefer it if american literacy was that high, fuck, WORLD literacy was that high.
 
Last edited:
TseTse said:
I guess he didnt really mean to say this then...

Eager to hear him explain all the other issues he disagrees with BUsh on while also addressing the Buckley question.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you're just trolling, because nobody can be this stupid.

I gave up on bush because of amnesty. I don't need any further issues for that decision. Much like if a democrat were to support the war, they would quickly drop in the polls and lose 90% of their support as well.

You take me "giving up on bush" is to mean I now directly oppose him on every single issue he holds, or at least the majority of them, which is probably what a 4th grader would assume, or someone with no knowledge of single-issue politics.
 
TseTse said:
Before he erases it. Not even the ACLU would come up with some non-sense. :lol:
Click to expand...

So again, you would have no problem if we restricted asking for clemency to whites-only, or people with net incomes of $500,000 or more.

It's not a right, so it can't be taken away. Right?
 
triple, way to pull the exact same logical fallacy he pulls when he says you've given up on bush.


Spoiler
 
triple said:
It's obvious you're just trolling, because nobody can be this stupid.

I gave up on bush because of amnesty. I don't need any further issues for that decision. Much like if a democrat were to support the war, they would quickly drop in the polls and lose 90% of their support as well.

You take me "giving up on bush" is to mean I now directly oppose him on every single issue he holds, or at least the majority of them, which is probably what a 4th grader would assume, or someone with no knowledge of single-issue politics.
Click to expand...

trip

cmon

you're trolling here

I respect you too much to believe that you can be this much of a fucking hard-charging believer in bush and right

edit: :wave: hay ass co, packed for LV? ;>
 
Ascoe said:
triple, way to pull the exact same logical fallacy he pulls when he says you've given up on bush.


Spoiler
Click to expand...

I didn't see marriage there, either.

(Im pro-gay marriage im just pointing out the logical leaps you guys take..)'

And the supreme court has instituted plenty of rights that weren't in the bill of rights specifically. Right to an abortion.. didn't see that one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top