Actually, your behaving in a very similar fashion to the sheriff; i.e., guilty until proven innocent. Will you give me an apology if I were to provide you with said link?
>> Actually, your behaving in a very similar fashion to the sheriff; i.e., guilty until proven innocent. Will you give me an apology if I were to provide you with said link?
Oh, nonsense. And you think MY debate style needs improvement?
I didn’t accuse you of a crime; we’re having a debate (your choice of words, not mine).
The topic “in the large” is whether or not Mike Huckabee’s competence and character are worthy of a POTUS.
The particular issue we’re discussing on this thread is whether or not Mike Huckabee a) unwisely influenced pardons or offered clemency to criminals, and b) whether or not he is failing to take responsibility and accountability for his actions.
Now, you step in with unsubstantiated statements that give “excuse” to Huckabee.
Precisely, here is what you said in post 4; the words are exact, but I have reformatted it into points.
1) Dumond was the target of what certainly appears to be corrupt prosecution.
2) Note that the arresting “peace” officer later died in prison based on charges of corruption.
3) If Huckabee’s predecessors were generally corrupt, then
4) it wouldn’t be surprising to have an inordinate number of cases which needed to be overturned.
5) Remember that Bill Clinton was AG of this state prior to his tenure as Governor. It would be interesting to find out how many of these cases of clemency go back that far.
So:
1) is a claim on your part, which you may be able to substantiate based on some evidence, but YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE NOR DID YOU SUPPORT HOW YOU REACHED THIS CONCLUSION;
2) is interesting, IF true, but again IF it’s true you should be able to provide some substantiation and YOU DID NOT;
3) this is a completely unsubstantiated claim; if you want me to consider it, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE;
4) follows from 3), IF you can prove 3;
5) This is nothing but innuendo. It relies on the fact that pretty much everyone here thinks Clinton is a slimeball, which is arguably true (I won’t argue with it) but in no way adds substantiation to your case.
Do you know why I’m taking the trouble to spell this out?
Because it’s IMPORTANT to get to the bottom of Huckabee! He wants to be POTUS, for goodness’ sake. MY LIFE may depend on who runs for POTUS and who wins.
So, hell no I won’t apologize for insisting that you back up your FUD-style of “debate” with FACTS. Provide them and I’ll definitely consider your position. If it’s compelling, I’ll even help you argue it. I want the TRUTH about Huckabee, not the spin.
I WILL accept YOUR apology for being sloppy and wasting my time, however.