Did you miss the part where mc mcark was calling on basso to apologize to Gore? Sometimes when you miss stuff, you have to circle back to pick it up...
if you want to say basso doesn't owe an apology, he's just passing on info, fine. but do you think basso was going to pass on info that the charges were dropped. where is basso, this is his thread, he was oh so excited about the news. secondly you didn't leave it at basso doesn't owe an apology, you're making up ridiculous senarios like no one wants to take on the mighty al gore.
Mainly they are retorts to the claims that Al Gore is innocent both in and out of court because of a decision not to prosecute. The supposition provided by some is that Al Gore is pure of heart and innocent as the driven snow. I provide alternate realities. We don't know which is, in fact. the case but we all have opinions, of course. What's wrong with countering an uncertain "certainty?"
well it tells us a lot about you that you prefer to consider him guilty. In America one is innocent until proven guilty. and yes, I am human enough to realize the duplicity of my statement.
This reminds me of the Glenn Beck rape/murder in 1990 meme. You probably wouldn't get it. What you think doesn't matter. What actually is on record does.
so you have to be pure of heart not to be a sexual assaulter? nobody made that argument but you have to make that up to defend your position. no freakin kidding, that's the problem, and not just this thread
I mainly don't consider him not guilty. Given that his marriage just dissolved, sexual escapades by a powerful, rich man in the last few years would not be unheard of, don't you think? So OJ is back on your "A" list? There is a court of public opinion, too. I don't know if it is duplicity; it's just having an opinion about something.
Boy I set myself up for that one; should have used better word choices. I'm referring to the reality that mc mcark created with being found not guilty in a court of law translates to non-event... that's what I don't agree with and thus the reality that I countered. I've never been on meds: legal or illegal. :grin:
Or, it means "we think this woman is a liar". Here's the memo from the DA on WHY they didn't think it was a good case: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/da_wont_pursue_charges_against_gore.php?ref=fpblg 1. Ms. Hagerty, who has red hair, states she called Mr. Gore immediately following the alleged incident and told him to "dream of redheaded women" seemingly in contradiction to her assertions that she was terrified of Mr. Gore. Two days after the alleged incident Ms. Hagerty also sent an email to the Hotel Lucia stating that she appreciated the business referrals she received from the hotel. She did not mention any problem with Mr. Gore; 2. Witnesses at the hotel where the alleged incident occurred state they do not remember seeing or hearing anything unusual---directly contradicting Ms. Hagerty's published claim in the July 12, 2010 of the National Enquirer that she was "shaking and in shock" and "rushed down the hall and to the lobby where the front desk clerk noticed she was upset was asked if she was OK"; 3. Forensic testing of pants retained by Ms. Hagerty as possible evidence are negative for the presence of seminal fluid; 4. Ms. Hagerty has not provided as repeatedly requested medical records she claims are related to the case; 5. Ms. Hagerty has also failed to provide other records related to the case; 6. Ms. Hagerty failed a polygraph examination; 7. It appears Ms. Hagerty was paid by the National Enquirer for her story; and 8. Mr. Gore voluntarily met with detectives and denied all of the allegations.
He's not "innocent both in and out of court". He's innocent, period. If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise, it's just innuendo and slander. If I went around saying "Giddyup is a Utah Jazz fan", I would wager you would be pretty darn upset about it, and I would have a lot of explaining to do. Especially if I didn't have any proof, such as pictures of you in a Karl Malone jersey, or holding hands with John Stockton. Of course, I would never say anything so heinous! You are aware that the multiverse is still just a theory, right? :grin:
I did hook up with Kirilenko's wife in some kind of revenge thing she had in mind... does that count against me? He's obviously not guilty in a court of law nor apparently will ever be found to be so, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. I'm not spending the rest of my life following Al Gore around reminding everyone within earshot about what may or may not have happened. But nor am I going to pretend the whole thing just never happened. I'm sure I'll forget about it in due time unless some other scandal surfaces. If you drive home after drinking too much and don't get stopped, does that mean you didn't do it? No, of course not. I'm sure if we tried, we could make a long list of people who were guilty but not proven so in court. We begin with OJ Simpson in the criminal trial. We can't just shove the reality of events out of existence; people are still going to have opinions about what might have happened. That's the beauty of being Al Gore.
But it doesn't mean he did, either. You're jumping to the presumption of guilt, based in your political bias. But that's just it: you're not talking about reality. You're talking about theory. The reality is he's innocent. He must be presumed so by our rule of law. To do otherwise subverts the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
In before the, "Apologize, Basso" post. Even though he should apologize for wasting oxygen on some days.
Ah, the zany world of giddyup, where racists are valiantly defended and innocent men are villified. Truthiness!
Why do you see it as a political motivation? Maybe that's your bias not mine? The reality is that we don't know if he's guilty or innocent (of doing it not of being convicted in a court of law of doing it). Having an opinion about the matter does not violate any amendments. I'm not dragging him to a Kangaroo Court.
Which of the "racists" I've defended have ever been "convicted" in a courtroom of racism? See you have them "convicted" or racism (outside the courtroom by you) and that's okay but Gore can be convicted (outside of the courtroom by me) and that's NOT okay? Talk about zany....
What it means is that the people who have seen the most evidence, and gotten all sides of the story have decided it doesn't deserve to even go to court. The reasons why they didn't go to court(that we know of) include the one witness against Gore not being reliable in statements she made about the incident, and there being no physical evidence like seminal fluid which she made it seem like there was. In your mind you've made up scenarios where Gore could still have done something. But every scenario you've made up is in your mind, and not based on any evidence. You are willfully ignoring the evidence that is present to keep some hope alive in your mind that he's guilty. The reason why someone might say it's because of your political bias is because you ignore evidence and make up reasons why people who've said racist things somehow didn't really say anything racist. It is just odd which side the scenarios you make up always come down on.
