- Moderator
- #301
If you consider saying you are a communist as an adult AND NEVER renouncing it as doing nothing wrong, we will never be able to debate honestly.
If you consider looking at a man's words and actions as more important than some sort of public renunciation of ideology - then yes, we can not debate honestly.
If you believe a WH appointee telling high school students that Moa is one of her two favorite POLITICAL philosophers as doing nothing wrong, then I have no interest in debating you.
If you don't believe it is wrong to take phrases out of the context of the speech and use them to smear someone as a supporter of mass murder, then you are correct - you would not be interested in debating me.
As for Geithner....he ONLY paid it when it was revealed...and he STILL did not pay what he owed from making the same mistake previously as he was not "cauight" as that was not originally audited.....and yes, he finally paid that when Fox let the cat out of the bag on that one.
If he made the mistake more than once it may have been an honest one (do you know for a fact he hasn't paid?). I won't argue taxes - the more money you earn the more complicated they are - usually, they are done by professionals at that point. I give Geithner the benefit of doubt though not Daschle.
To me...if you get audited and you did something wrong, you are not necessarily to blame.....but if you had done it earlier as well, and did not point that out to the auditor....you may be a msart man as we all would do the same...but you have lost the right to be a WH appointee.
Usually an audit looks at multiple years of taxes - I would think they would have picked it up in the same audit yes?
Funny....all those Obama supporters complained about Bush and his "lies and deceit"...and the runors flew around about himwith nothing concrete...just rumors.
About as concrete as the arguments made here. Certainly what occurred in the DoJ was pretty concrete.
So here, we have an administration where rumors do not need to fly....we have proof.....a lot of crap on film and yet..."thats OK!...they made mistakes"
Pathetic.
Your "proof" is more proof of ideological partisanship than anything else - Dunn and Van Jones are a perfect example. Ideological differences are not criminal much as you may wish them to be.
Film is hardly "fool proof" - film can be edited, clipped, and disparate sections spanning years and different events can be put together. Once you take a portion out of the context of a whole it becomes suspect. Don't you ever find yourself wondering - when you view a 3 minute clip of a 60 minute program what was left out?
Last edited: