Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Ok, so you don't have evidence but you BELIEVE the prosecutors failed and he's really guilty. So I guess Stathol hit the nail on the head. It's like faith. Your animosity toward Republicans is your religion.
Because that conclusion is logical. /eyeroll
My belief in Tom Delay's corruption is not without evidence. Just because the evidence the DoJ presented was not sufficient doesn't mean there isn't ample evidence of his corruption. While it could be possible that Tom Delay is as clean as a whistle, the chances of that are nearly nil. He may walk entirely. However, he's still connected to Jack Abramoff, he's still connected to the evil that is the North Marianas Island clothing industry - I just don't think he's as goodly a man as you guys seem to be implying.
However, you are correct that it is my *belief*. It is something I believe subjectively. It is not, however, an article of faith.
Quote:
Or maybe your noodly appendage of God? Or, maybe, he's innocent.
Do you honestly believe he's actually innocent?
Quote:
Ok, so we've previously established that producing no evidence of a crime and producing no charges does not mean you're not guilty. Now you are saying that going through trial and being found "not guilty" does not mean you're not guilty.
There is actual guilt, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trials do not affect what actually happened. You can be found innocent and still be, in reality, guilty of a crime.
Quote:
Basically, then, it can be assumed that in order to be accepted as not guilty, the Religion of Monty must BELIEVE it.
Don't be an idiot. You know damn well it's illogical to conclude that a jury's verdict will always reflect reality. Remember, the Jury's job is not to determine weather or not he did it. The Jury's job is to judge if the state has met it's burden of proof.
_________________
It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show