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?
