No' date=' it sounds like he understands it when i a kid isnt as smart or intelligent. But when a grown up is, well thats just sad.[/quote']

 

In which case, you must be referring to yourself.;)

What YOU say is "evidence" is another person's "hearsay". Nice try yourself.;)

 

 

Well first of all it was LOTS of people's opinions based on studying the intelligence, not just what someone may have made up.

 

Second of all they had tons of photos, thus had TANGIBLE evidence not just ONE guys's worde.

 

one side they had MANY different CREDIBLE intelligene agencies making reports based on agents opinions, facts and what they thought was hard TANGIBLE evidence

 

on your side they had ONE guy saying something happened, no evidence, nothing tangible just ONE guys's word.....

In which case' date=' you must be referring to yourself.;)[/quote']

 

Yeah because im the one who believes childish hear-say rumors without facts and evidence. Im sure you'd fit in to any grade school in the world.

Fight thread, and i'll start it :p for you

Well first of all it was LOTS of people's opinions based on studying the intelligence, not just what someone may have made up.

 

Second of all they had tons of photos, thus had TANGIBLE evidence not just ONE guys's worde.

 

one side they had MANY different CREDIBLE intelligene agencies making reports based on agents opinions, facts and what they thought was hard TANGIBLE evidence

 

on your side they had ONE guy saying something happened, no evidence, nothing tangible just ONE guys's word.....

 

Which turned out to be true, whereas all the weight of evidence in the Iraq case ended up in no proof at all.

In some instances, you can have an instinct that there is "no smoke without fire". That was the case with "Pastor Ted".;)

Yeah because im the one who believes childish hear-say rumors without facts and evidence. Im sure you'd fit in to any grade school in the world.

 

You believed government "facts and evidence" which turned out to be hogwash.

So what does that make you? Mrfool??:rolleyes:

You believed government "facts and evidence" which turned out to be hogwash.

So what does that make you? Mrfool??:rolleyes:

 

A fool? a fool listens to hear-say, i looked at evidence, most the time it will be correct on rare occasion it will be false. as a fool will believe hearsay without any facts or evidence and most the time be wrong.

 

you're a fool, if you were a little kid, you'd just be a kid, but since you're probably and adult and you believe hear say, you're just a fool without a mind.

 

I go by facts and evidence and those are not 100% all the time, as in hear say is almost never right

 

PS unless new evidence came out i didnt see, itst not proven he had gay sex, so far all i saw is he admited to a message.

A fool? a fool listens to hear-say, i looked at evidence, most the time it will be correct on rare occasion it will be false. as a fool will believe hearsay without any facts or evidence and most the time be wrong.

 

you're a fool, if you were a little kid, you'd just be a kid, but since you're probably and adult and you believe hear say, you're just a fool without a mind.

 

I go by facts and evidence and those are not 100% all the time, as in hear say is almost never right

 

PS unless new evidence came out i didnt see, itst not proven he had gay sex, so far all i saw is he admited to a message.

 

Well Saddam hasn't actually admitted anything. Does that make him innocent?

You can believe what you like, but there's definitely something very fishy if you ask me.;)

If he was hetero, I'm pretty sure he would have sought a masseuse, not a masseur.:rolleyes:

:wacko: Mark just loves these little arguments..don't you Mark!!!

Well Saddam hasn't actually admitted anything. Does that make him innocent?

You can believe what you like, but there's definitely something very fishy if you ask me.;)

If he was hetero, I'm pretty sure he would have sought a masseuse, not a masseur.:rolleyes:

 

Him not admiting to being innocent is immaterial to anything, because its all about facts and/or evidence. You can prove a man's guilt or lack of guilt sometimes without him saying he's innocent or guilty. the simple fact you do not rely on any facts or evidence is what the problem was about, not guilt or innocence, but how you came to believe it.

Him not admiting to being innocent is immaterial to anything' date=' because its all about facts and/or evidence. You can prove a man's guilt or lack of guilt sometimes without him saying he's innocent or guilty. the simple fact you do not rely on any facts or evidence is what the problem was about, not guilt or innocence, but how you came to believe it.[/quote']

 

You can apply that to any story, whether it's about Madonna, Britney, Wacko Jacko or Dubya.

You can either believe it or not. Nobody really gives a monkey's.:rolleyes: