Re: RMAS liberals attack a generous guy


"A to Z" <BESUREadietzTO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4bkii4F117tj1U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bluetele" <bluetele@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Wt85g.2246$6d4.1278@xxxxxxxxxxx

"A to Z" <BESUREadietzTO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4bkcqkF11vu3lU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Charlie Board" <charlieDIESPAMMERSboard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4454F477.3020204@xxxxxxxxxxxx


So when Neil Young attacks Bush for hiring criminals
Patrick informs us that one is not a criminal
unless the law says so. Then when we point out
that that rightie icon Rsh Limbaugh took a plea
bargain and as is now an official criminal we
are "attacking" him. Nice double standard there.


not to excuse Rush (who is inexcusable), but as I understand this plea,
he will not be a criminal. All charges but one have been dismissed, he
will plead not guilty to that charge, and if he remains "clean" for 18
months, that charge will be dismissed as well. So he's not an "official"
criminal - there is no "official" finding of guilt.

Even if not a criminal de jure, though, he sure is one de facto.

One of the nicest things is the way we're allowed to form our own
judgments about people without having to adhere to the rules of a court
of law or even strict dictionary definitions. As long as you're not a
judge acting in an official capicity or something, feel free to call the
man what you want.


ergo, "Even if not a criminal de jure, though, he sure is one de facto."

You say "de facto criminal," and I say "candy ass ***." Let's call the
whole thing off.

bt


.

Quantcast