Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
You are the guys that brought up age. Dalakhani said that what Studds did was alright because the 17 year old was of legal age.
By the way, you are a guy that claims you belive that people are innocent until proven guilty. Coincidentally, you only believe in this concept if you like the person who is accused. If you don't, then you throw the concept out the window. You say that Foley gave Reynolds $100k in hush money? Has that been proven in a court of law? What happened to your belief in the innocent until proven guilty concept?
|
Hey Rupert, leave me totally out of this...and good luck to you and those that you believe in.
I didn't resign and hide in a rehab so my lawyer could make excuses for me.
I didn't make a 100K "contribution" to the Repub party fund boss.
I didn't script any "news" stories for Fox.
I'm totally innocent. Nor am I responsible or accountable.
Though, I'm guessing that with all the spinning that's going on, somebody is.
Maybe more.
So, is the issue "age of consent"?
That's avoidance.
Blaming the "media" for reporting?
That's more avoidance.
Will answers be presented to the "real" questions be presented before the November elections?
I sure hope so, because I've always thought that the Republicans stood on "truth".
err...uh... How did we get into Iraq?
Oh! WMD, Regime change, democracy and "stable government"...
Keep believing. (notice the middle syllable).