Well, normally that is the case.

However, in this case, most would agree that GWB is just a figurehead, a likeable idiot that could get elected but would spend most of his time on vacation.

This is the progression I've learned to (unfortunately) live with when people hate for the sake of hate...

Look at the last three sentences...we'll take them one by one...

Saying someone can do something, of course, doersn't mean they've done anything...But pointing out someone's ability to do something comes with an implication...I can kill my nextdoor neighbor with a knife...But what's the point of even saying it?!?!...:

Anyway, saying someone can do something is not saying someone's guilty...they only have the ability to be guilty...

I'll be fair and put this at 50% of Bush being guilty...Simply for the fact that people believe he has the power to be guilty...


Now we've gone from ability to do something and progressed it up to "reasonably guilty"(60%?...70%?...99%?)...From one sentence to the next was a jump from a possibly objective statement to one which actually takes no account into the fact that no one was found guilty of the crimes that were spread across the front pages for weeks and months at a time...The objectivity is gone and we now see perception become reality...


And now the jump again...From "reasonably guilty" to "100% guilty"...The fact that someone posts that he can "get away with it" shows a belief that "it" was done...Once again, even though no evidence showing this to be the case...

This is the natural progression on how some people think themselves into a conclusion based on nothing more than partisan speculation and wishful thinking...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Here we go again.
Ignoring the issue in general for fixating on accusations of "hate".

Could you imagine if this happened at your office?
Some co-worker routinely flubs up.
People in his division flub up, little to no penalty action is taken (even though it is promised)...
And then when people point out that person messing up, the best response that is mustered is "You just hate him..."



In the context of what knot_e_lady actually said, this response is pure strawman argument...
She never claimed he DID do the thing just because he COULD have done the thing.


"objectivity"?
Where is the "objectivity" in just parrotting "Bush hater" over and over again when people point out something Bush did wrong?

YOUR lack of objectivity was emphasized in the earlier thread on Bush and gay issues. I EXPLICITLY stated that I viewed Bush as *positive to neutral* on gay issues, and in later responses you turned around and accused me of "Bush hating".

I think it's a response you throw out there cause you've got no better response.

Furthermore addressing your statement, knot_e_lady WAS NOT saying that she would convict the guy based solely on her opinion.
She JUST GAVE her opinion.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted.
People still think he was guilty.
Oh My Gawd! Shouldn't we jump all over THEM as well because they have a contradictory thought to the conclusion of our justice system???

You're getting all bent out of shape for no good reason.

No.
The next post is saying "You were wrong cnredd."

You EXPLICITLY stated that MALICE was required in order to prove guilt.
And now, when you actually post the information, it only talks about INTENT.

The only thing this distinguishes is that if somebody "accidentally" leaks the information, the person is not culpable.
(Somehow I think our next step is going to be what the Republicans can get away with claiming "accident" means...)

This in no way substantiates your claim.

And the thing that kills me is that you later REPEAT your original claim of "malice" which you DID NOT PROVE.


cnredd: Did you maliciously do so?...Nope...


Your claim of malice is false!
malice
n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1197&bold=malice||

It doesn't matter whether or not "malice" is present or not. Lack of malice does not excuse one from the crime.
(And if you think about it, why the heck would anybody want to make the law require proof of "malice"???)
Intentionally leaking the information IS the crime. As it should be.

You negate yourself within the same post...Pretty tough to do that, too...

First, it's this...

I'd like you to tell me how the hell can someone do something "accidentally malicious"...

You CAN'T...It HAS to be intentional!!!!...Your definition actully uses the word "intentional"!!!...

Just the fact that I used the word "malicious" already INCLUDES the fact that it has to be intentional...

That's just absurd...

Every single person sitting in jail right now because they shot someone was because "proof of malice" was shown...If not, they'd all be free on self-defense...

Why do you think "manslaughter" evens exists?!??!...because it's "lack of malice"...Yup...

The drunk driver didn't INTEND to kill the old lady with his car...he gets a lower sentence than he would if he did...

Correct statement...

Now WHO in this case has been convicted of "intentionally leaking the information"?...No one...

WHO in this case has been indicted of "intentionally leaking the information"?...No one...

So mentioning that "intentinally leaking the information IS the crime" is the exact same thing as saying "The sky is blue"...

Both are true statements...Both have nothing to do with what happened in this case...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

If you're finished guffawing at your confusion.
The point was that "malice" is not required for a conviction.
Successfully claiming "accident" would obviously get one out of this law regardless of whether the word "malice" existed there.

There is no confusion there, except on your part.
I never claimed anything about "accidentally malicious".

Try to keep up, cause you're laughing at your own strawman...


You're confused.
I even UNDERLINED and ITALICIZED the relevant combination, but you still couldn't get it.
For something to be malicious, it has to have:
a) intent (which is something you showed), and
b) the intent is to DO HARM (which is something completely lacking from your definition)

THAT is the point.
Are you so blind that you suddenly think "Hey! I got one word out of the definition right, so the entire definition must fit!"

To state the point explicitly, so hopefully you can get it the second time, you have not shown any part of the definition where you have to prove the intent was "to do harm".


Meaningless non-sequitur.
You really are lost.
Yes. Malice does require "intent".
My point is that not all "intent" is "malice".

It doesn't matter whether or not "malice" is present or not. Lack of malice does not excuse one from the crime.
(And if you think about it, why the heck would anybody want to make the law require proof of "malice"???)

Are you thoroughly lost?
You're not even making sense at this stage.

KEEP IT IN CONTEXT.
For THIS crime, NOTHING on the issue of "malice" has to be proven.

And then you go ahead and say this...

"manslaughter" demonstrates ANOTHER law where an act is illegal WHEN NO "malice" is present.

Forest for the trees.
Try reading and comprehending.


1) No. It's not the "same thing" because earlier YOU tried to claim that "malice" was required for the discussed act to be illegal.
INTENT is required. Yes.
MALICE, which is MORE than just simple "intent" is not required.

2) Again, I'm faced with the situation where we have a dead body, with a knife sticking out of the back, and cnredd is proclaiming "no conviction. nobody has been convicted!"
Obviously a crime HAS BEEN committed.
The fact that there has not been enough evidence to proceed with what would obviously be a highly scrutinized and political issue is not proof of a lack of a crime.

O.J's ex still has no conviction too...

First. I don't hate Bush. I might have hated Regan. But that was tied to my pocket book and America changing before my eyes. And I'm still sorting all that out.
This is subjective information, I know, but it's all I have to offer. When I went to the polls to vote in the last presidential election, I truly could have voted for either candidate.
Plus, in a lot of instances, I've taken up for Bush. I think he did a good job after nine eleven. And I admire his tenacity for prosecuting the war in the face of criticism.
But honestly this looks and smells and walks like a duck.
Private citizens have figured out the hairy truth in politics for years given the information. And they've (we've) been correct a lot more than not. The movies always portray the opposite (i.e., Everybody is wrong about a 1, 2, 3 easy peasy murder investigation: the guy really DIDN'T kill his wife/there was a shadowy intruder).

I'm just saying it quacks.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP