Seriously...I appreciate that. And I also apologize...mostly for comparing you to Haymarket. And I guess I have to thank Whovian for pointing out how silly the exchange was.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
Next in #135 and #137 I stated that to in order to avoid obstruction of justice and perjury charges stemming from that case (the Jones case) Clinton entered into an agreement. Oh yes and that those charges would not have been of a civil nature! Somehow you seriously think I'm wrong, even pushing so called falsehoods.
Is it possible you *actually* meant that the reason he entered those agreements with prosecutors was because he was not afraid of being "convicted"? If so, who cares? It would not make you a legal genius now would it?
You're way too defensive and it leaves you unable to read what has actually been stated. But sure, in the land of Fred Rogers I was pushing falsehoods!
You had something to pontificate about regarding honesty and facts ? Only if it involved an erroneous caveat about *which* case it was you were not *up* on the results of? Guess what? I was right about ALL of them. Check your facts.
Last edited by Zaserac; 02-09-11 at 04:11 AM.
Hmmm... Let's ACTUALLY check. Did you say agreements or did you say an agreement. If the former, then it was about multiple cases and multiple agreements, but if the latter, then you were doing exactly what I said you were doing.
Let's just take a looky-loo:
I guess that just adds the post I'm responding to to your list of lies. Care to add more, or will you have the cajones to admit you had your facts wrong?
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Last edited by Zaserac; 02-09-11 at 02:15 PM.
I simply chose to use enormous writing to expose the fact that you are actively and purposefully distorting the way that the situation developped.
See, if you were being honest, you would have to admit that you initially portrayed it as a single plea agreement, which either would be an admission of not having your facts correct (which is what I politely informed you about initially), or that you were actively lying when you portrayed it as such.
As you can see, my initial assumption was that you were merely misinformed. But your subsequent willful attempts to distort the reality of what occurred leads me to the conclusion that you must have been purposefully distorting the truth in that reply, as you are when you purposefully distort the truth by pretending that you initially said to "agreements" instead of "an agreement".
Since it's very plain to see that you did not say what you are now claiming you said, I am having fun exposing that dishonesty.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.