|
|
|
=======
|
| |
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
|
|
Sep 21st, 2004, 12:13 PM
I almost posted on that comment yesterday, but figured I should let it slide... But now that MAX agrees, I have to ask a couple questions. Rather is parroting this assertion as well that the proof may have been forged, but what the fakes meant to prove is still true... So, how do we know that?
An unproven suspicion is still just a suspicion. The forged memos were meant to prove Dubya defied a direct order and whatnot... I mean, we already knew his Guard duty was, just like everybody else's serving in that unit, a product of privledge... which is essentially what Mrs. Knox was saying.
Does Dan Rather really expect me to believe Bush did something 30+ years ago that should affect whether I vote for him this year based solely on his unproven beliefs? Not that I would, but is that supposed to be what's "really true" here?
| |
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?
How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
| |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
