Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[nodoginnafight]

Nothing I've said is untrue...

And I haven't claimed that what you have said is untrue - that may or may not be determined later. What YOU said, "He has committed no crime" was a definitive statement of fact that you cannot support. We don't know that yet.
It is no diferent than making a defintive statement of fact that he HAS commited a crime. (A statement I made incorrectly and for which I was man enough to admit I was wrong for doing.)

You may not make a distinction between a definitive statement of "No crime committed" and the presuption of innocense that sets the legal statdard for prosecution, but that doesn't mean no distinction exists. It only means you do not recognize that distinction. I do.

If I were a rude and insulting poster, I could very easy chide you for lack of legal education that makes it impossible for you to draw distinctions between similar but significately different points - a skill very important for lawyers.

 

[Dr.House]

Geez, boy, you are at the bottom of the pool gulping water.

Good luck with classes in the fall, junior... Stay in school!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

My opinion in this subject is not wrong.

Yes it has been proven wrong. Saying that the number of people who self identify with a particular party is connected to the TYPE of people, or the deomographics of the people who are identifying with that party is obviously not true.

Show me where I said that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Show me where I said that.

I posted the quote in this thread. That is what started this line of discussion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.

Can you admit that you were wrong when you said:

This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.

It is clear that saying "more people identify themselves as Democrats" makes absolutely NO determination as to the demographic make-up of those identifying themselves with a particular party.

In addition, you can claim that "your opinion" is that the Republican party has historically been every bit as diverse as the Democratic Party. But that opinion is contracticted in the full text of the four or five links I posted that provided the historical data and statistics.

 

[Dr.House]

Nothing I've said is untrue...

And I haven't claimed that what you have said is untrue - that may or may not be determined later. What YOU said, "He has committed no crime" was a definitive statement of fact that you cannot support. We don't know that yet.
It is no diferent than making a defintive statement of fact that he HAS commited a crime. (A statement I made incorrectly and for which I was man enough to admit I was wrong for doing.)

You may not make a distinction between a definitive statement of "No crime committed" and the presuption of innocense that sets the legal statdard for prosecution, but that doesn't mean no distinction exists. It only means you do not recognize that distinction. I do.

It is my humble opinon that he has committed no crime... It's a definitive statement of opinion... I formulate this opinion from the evidence I have seen, as well as the fact that Rove didn't fire anyone and was well within his rights to speak his mind to the President... All transcripts have been released and no contrdicting evdince has been displayed thus far... I am of the opinion that this is a political witch hunt and a waste of taxpayer dollars...

I'm sorry you are unable to grasp this whole concept that people give opionions on message boards... You may disagree with that opinion and presume he is guilty of a crime sans evidence thereof, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join you in your folly...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Show me where I said that.

I posted the quote in this thread. That is what started this line of discussion.

What I quoted and what you just posted wasn't the same language.

No, what started this line of discussion was you saying that the republicans were more homogenous than democrats. And I disagreed. You brought up several links to help your argument, but I didn't feel those links rose to the level that made your claim accurate. and that is my opinion and you are free to disagree with it. Now that you have succcessfully changed the subject, shall we change it back to the discussion about you claiming Rove lied? Of which I believe you were going to show evidence that proves your claim. Evidence that I'm still waiting to see.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing - More politics- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Former White House political adviser Karl Rove was deeply involved in the firing of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday.

The House Judiciary Committee released more than 5,400 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have U.S. Attorney David Iglesias removed. In one e-mail in 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide, saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY."

ROFLMNAO...

SO WHAT?

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President... We all learned this WAY back in 93 when Clinton fired the entire batch of US attorneys... That Rove was discussing it is irrelevant. That they were fired and hired because of their political or ideological tendencies is IRRELEVANT... that some idiot decided to make a LAW that sought to rule out subjective preferences is IRRELEVANT... as such laws are unenforcable.

The President has a right to hire and fire anyone he PREFERS serve his administration...

Look at the communist fucks this regime is employing... You think Americans are comfortable with THAT MESS? Hell no... but that's the PRESIDENT'S CHOICE... and even tho' the President is a communist subversive and the pure embodiment of everything America stands against... HE was elected and as such, he gets to choose who serves him...

Bush had the same privilege... and those that contest that, can bugger-off.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Dr. H would know because he has had to quit dozens of times recently. He gets in over his head, but he does get excited. So give Dr. H. a break.

Dude, I'm not really Doctor Gregory House...

I'm certainly not over my head in this thread, pinhead...

A 5 year old wouldn't be over their head in a thread where the opposition is that dousche-bag moron.

She exist to spam... and has YET to offer a lucid, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned argument IN ANY THREAD, ON ANY ISSUE.

I give every new-b 30 days... and without regardless to how pathetic someone may be, no one goes to ignore in under 30 days... but this clown is BARRELING towards the abyss with every post.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is my humble opinon that he has committed no crime... It's a definitive statement of opinion...

That's different than what you said before.
I respect your clarification.

 

[Dr.House]

That's different than what you said before.

No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Show me where I said that.

I posted the quote in this thread. That is what started this line of discussion.

What I quoted and what you just posted wasn't the same language.

No, what started this line of discussion was you saying that the republicans were more homogenous than democrats. And I disagreed. You brought up several links to help your argument, but I didn't feel those links rose to the level that made your claim accurate. and that is my opinion and you are free to disagree with it. Now that you have succcessfully changed the subject, shall we change it back to the discussion about you claiming Rove lied? Of which I believe you were going to show evidence that proves your claim. Evidence that I'm still waiting to see.

One: I cut and pasted those quotes from the original thread. Denying it now, is not what I consider to be truthful or worthy of respect.

Two What makes you believe I was going to produce evidence proving Rove lied? When you asked me to produce this, I responded with:

Lonestar: I'm still waiting on you to show that Rove lied. You have all the documents pertaining to the case so it should be easy for you to point out the alleged falsehood.
No dog: No I don't have ALL the evidence - prosecutor has that and will determine whether or not she wants to persue criminal charges. I'll trust her.

And as for my presuming guilt, I already retracted and apologized for that. Proves I am a big enough man to admit I was wrong. You are proving that you are not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.

Can you admit that you were wrong when you said:

This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.

It is clear that saying "more people identify themselves as Democrats" makes absolutely NO determination as to the demographic make-up of those identifying themselves with a particular party.

In addition, you can claim that "your opinion" is that the Republican party has historically been every bit as diverse as the Democratic Party. But that opinion is contracticted in the full text of the four or five links I posted that provided the historical data and statistics.

Party identification is a psychological attachment toward a political party that tends to influence a person's decisions on social, economic and political issues. I believe that social, economic and political issues directly correspond within certain demographics.

No where have I stated that the republican party was every bit as diverse and the democratic party. I disagreed with your claim that the republicans were more homogenous.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here's the exchange that you are trying to sidestep lonestar:

Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight
"Traditionally Republicans are more homogenous than Democrats because Democrats in general are a much more diverse group of people. "

Is THIS the statement you are asking for documentation to support?

if so:

Democrats Gain Edge in Party Identification - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press


http://www.nd.edu/~cwolbrec/PartyID.pdf

(Page 64 of 66) - Multiculturalism and American Party Politics authored by Bass, Shana.


Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious

Lonestar: This from the first link you offered.


Quote:
In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.

Lonestar: This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I posted the quote in this thread. That is what started this line of discussion.

What I quoted and what you just posted wasn't the same language.

No, what started this line of discussion was you saying that the republicans were more homogenous than democrats. And I disagreed. You brought up several links to help your argument, but I didn't feel those links rose to the level that made your claim accurate. and that is my opinion and you are free to disagree with it. Now that you have succcessfully changed the subject, shall we change it back to the discussion about you claiming Rove lied? Of which I believe you were going to show evidence that proves your claim. Evidence that I'm still waiting to see.

One: I cut and pasted those quotes from the original thread. Denying it now, is not what I consider to be truthful or worthy of respect.

Two What makes you believe I was going to produce evidence proving Rove lied? When you asked me to produce this, I responded with:

Lonestar: I'm still waiting on you to show that Rove lied. You have all the documents pertaining to the case so it should be easy for you to point out the alleged falsehood.
No dog: No I don't have ALL the evidence - prosecutor has that and will determine whether or not she wants to persue criminal charges. I'll trust her.

And as for my presuming guilt, I already retracted and apologized for that. Proves I am a big enough man to admit I was wrong. You are proving that you are not.

But you do have all the evidence. Every document pertaining to the case is on Rove's website which I provided a link to. If there is anything missing let me know and I will let Rove know so he can post it as well.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No where have I stated that the republican party was every bit as diverse and the democratic party. I disagreed with your claim that the republicans were more homogenous.

That's what homogenous means.

homogeneous:
EtymologyPrefix homo- + gene + -ous

similar, or the same as something else
having the same composition throughout; uniform

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here's the exchange that you are trying to sidestep lonestar:

Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight
"Traditionally Republicans are more homogenous than Democrats because Democrats in general are a much more diverse group of people. "

Is THIS the statement you are asking for documentation to support?

if so:

Democrats Gain Edge in Party Identification - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press


http://www.nd.edu/~cwolbrec/PartyID.pdf

(Page 64 of 66) - Multiculturalism and American Party Politics authored by Bass, Shana.


Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious

Lonestar: This from the first link you offered.


Quote:
In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.

Lonestar: This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.

And I disagree with that statement.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No where have I stated that the republican party was every bit as diverse and the democratic party. I disagreed with your claim that the republicans were more homogenous.

That's what homogenous means.

homogeneous:
EtymologyPrefix homo- + gene + -ous

similar, or the same as something else
having the same composition throughout; uniform

Trust me I know what the word means, But I still disagree with your claim!! I don't give a rats ass how many times you present this argument, I will not change my opinion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's different than what you said before.

No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...

Oh I see, your position is that there is no difference between saying, "He committed no crime" and in saying "In my opinion he committed no crime"

Then why did you try to distinguish between MY saying, "He committed a crime" rather than saying "in my opinion he committed a crime"?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Trust me I know what the word means, But I still disagree with your claim!! I don't give a rats ass how many times you present this argument, I will not change my opinion.

So your "opinion" is that saying more people self identify as Democrats makes a determination as the diversity of those people who are identifying with either party?

You can claim your "opinion" is that one plus one equals four until you turn purple in order to avoid admitting you were wrong.

I don't have the time or the inclination to play your little sophomoric games.