You are making assertions in an effort to prove an argument.
This means the burden of proof is on you.
We have Giuliani on trial here, in the Court of Public Opinion.
What you're doing is like a prosecutor throwing up his hands and saying "Honorable Counsel for the Defense, I know this guy is bad. Can you look in your records and prove that he is for me?"
Well, I'm not doing that for you, and neither would a real defense attorney. They would laugh at you, politely, because the Judge doesn't like gloating.
Finally, I'm sure you have noticed I've written hundreds of words of original writing on Giuliani's side in recent days. I think the burden of proof is on you about that laziness accusation, too.
Hope that helps.
D
I have made no assertions, merely posting what has already been reported by dozens of media outlets. I even posted links. If you choose to ignore them, that is your decision.
don't try to make something into an issue that doesn't exist.
If there is something posted that is not true, then disprove it. I posted the sources, the burden of proof is on you. Case closed.
Dear daviddennis,
Why does the "burden of proof" fall on to those pointing out that there is no evidence generally that Mr. Giuliani typically appointed conservative jurists?
After all, the question doesn't appear out of thin air. The question comes from Mr. Giuliani's own statements, that he will appoint judges and justices like Mr. Scalia, Mr. Roberts, et. al.
That laughable claim being made, it's perfect appropriate to ask the question, well, is there any past behavior on the part of Mr. Giuliani that would show that he may be telling the truth? Has Mr. Giuliani appointed judges before?
The answer is, yes, indeed, he has! Then the next appropriate questions are, how many did he appoint? How many of those were conservatives?
Here, it seems that the burden of proof is on Mr. Giuliani and the rudybots who so defend him. After all, the conservatives asking the question are only asking it to see whether or not Mr. Giuliani's claims about what he will do in the future are supported by his actions in the past.
Actual conservatives are highly skeptical that this man will do conservative things after two decades of liberalism. Without evidence of appointing conservative jurists, our skepticism will not be overcome. In fact, lack of evidence of appointing conservative jurists will only confirm our doubts about the man and his promises to appoint "strict constructionist" jurists.
It is inexplicable that if he'd appointed large numbers of conservative jurists that he wouldn't present that as evidence of his bona fides on the issue of Supreme Court appointees.
Although not conclusive, the most reasonable conclusion from his failure to tout his own appointments to the bench, by giving us a breakdown of who he appointed by party, is that he appointed pretty much liberal Dems, and he understands that to permit the truth of it to come to light would undermine his current claims and promises.
The burden of proof is on Mr. Giuliani and all the rudybots.
Conservatives who oppose Mr. Giuliani have every right to say that Mr. Giuliani has not shown that he will appoint conservative jurists, because there is no evidence that he ever did that in the past, in spite of his admission to have appointed a hundred judges or so.
sitetest
Below is another of my responses to the person making accusations of laziness.
To: TommyDale
"There are literally dozens of articles, ranging from the Washington Post to the Washington Times. If you weren't so lazy you would read them and decide for yourself, rather than shoot the messenger."
Lazy! You do a document dump and you call that research. What are the charges against Rudy??? What was illegal, what was unethical, what crimes or misindeamores is he being charged/accused with? I read all the leftist/communists hit pieces you referenced. There's nothing there, there. He trusted a colleague and excellent ex-NYC police commissioner and got embarrassed. That's not a crime. The articles were only written to bring down his negatives, which by the way have remained high in spite. Come up with some factual examples of illegal or unethical behavior on Rudy's part or move on, or you'll just have to bear more scrutiny.
560 posted on 02/23/2007 10:50:58 PM EST by Gop1040