Nobody called it a loophole...

Post #83,932 by bepatient 2/24/03 11:39:37 PM Reply	Nobody called it a loophole... ...but you and Silver. You are making something up and then tossing it in with completely unrelated situations. All the while "pretending" to ignore. Its not a letter vs spirit argument. Except to you...in a veiled attempt to toss around some holier than thou insults. Pathetic is your word for that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,933 by Silverlock 2/24/03 11:49:50 PM Reply	You don't consider this a loophole? Clearly circomventing the laws of our country to do business with our declared enemies? Oh, never mind. I forgot. Profit was involved. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,939 by Brandioch 2/25/03 12:11:51 AM Reply	Another possible factor. Do you believe that certain people would hold an opinion contrary to their current opinion if the company involved had retained the services of Bill or Hillary Clinton? I think there the discussion would be the complete opposite of what we're seeing right now.
Post #83,943 by bepatient 2/25/03 1:17:22 AM 2/25/03 1:19:56 AM Reply	Obviously not. Its not a hidden clause. Its not a "lttle known sub-paragraph" Its not any of these things. Why. Because the transaction was absolutely legal. There was no circumventing involved. There was no "loophole" involved. But I expect you to continue this..and continue your attacks against me...simply because I know your position that anyone even remotely involved with the current US government is an evil, lying bastard thief...and then you get really nasty with oil men. So none of them could possibly be upholding the law. (except the Holy Ghost" tm of the law maybe) You continue to INVENT "loopholes". Talk about "letter" versus "spirit" of the law (and then mention Clinton like I would have a different opinion if it were >him<)(post edit..sorry...not you) I don't have that problem...much as it would be >convenient< to assume. Your "friend" continues to be too afraid to tackle any issue with me directly. But since he has been supporting Chirac..well you know where that leads..we're far enough right for that to be very clear. I expect more of the same. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 25, 2003, 01:19:56 AM EST Expand All History
Post #84,009 by Silverlock 2/25/03 1:23:09 PM Reply	Take it slow I am not attacking you. I am attacking your position. Your mindset. Your reflexive defense of all things monetary. Slow down and make sure you are not confusing me with someone else. I see by your edit that for at least part of this exchange, you did have me confused with someone else. Are you sure you didn't make the same error elsewhere? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #84,042 by bepatient 2/25/03 2:45:23 PM Reply	I did. And thought the post edit addition would clarify (the "sorry not you" piece) that section of post not directed at you specifically. Its not "reflexive defense". It is a very simple reasoning. You made a false statement. I called you on it. I did recant on a portion of the debate with you due to your clarification on stance with "nos amis". I had assumed a position based upon one of your posts that you later clarified. (All in good spirit, too...unlike a few others around here;-)) Then we enter a little go-round about "letter vs spirit" in which you start railing on the >intent<. You don't know anything about the intent. You assume it based on your prejudice...a prejudice that I don't share. And here...you are probably correct...we can agree to disagree. I don't care to >ever< enter a place where prosecution is based upon some mythical "spirit" of law. You seem quite fine with assuming guilt first, based on your own personal prejudice. Is that the country that you want made in your own image? Its a slippery slope that applies evenly across the board. I do not support prosecution on "spirit" of the law because that "spirit" is open to radical differences in interpretation. And just discussing "spirit" versus letter, in my opinion, is an attempt to level guilt at the innocent. Individual >or< business. And sooner or later, these assumptions of guilt are NOT leveled at the "evil business"...but they are leveled at an individual member of that business. Much like here. And there is no basis nor any proof that Cheney was involved or even aware that these sales were made. (Oh sure...you will retort "How could he NOT know...he was in charge"..etc...all assumptions...all presumed guilt...all leveled at an individual based upon your personal prejudice) See where this is going? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,050 by Silverlock 2/25/03 3:03:26 PM Reply	Letter vs spirit post wasn't from me. I thought you may have made that mistake. Just clarifying. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #84,059 by bepatient 2/25/03 3:26:09 PM Reply	Yep...review complete. You held that it was illegal. No spirit mentioned. So we can stick to the original "you're wrong" assessment that I made earlier :) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!