Posted on 08/13/2002 3:48:08 AM PDT by ResistorSister
Who are you trying to kid? The widow was quoted as saying that her husband was going to commit murder. Even if the evidence were presented to the moral-liberal anarcho-ideologues in Dolby stereo technicolor, they would claim the evidence was tainted by the Trilateral Commission anyway.
Bizarre.
Even so, the impurities have risen to the surface where they can easily be identified and scooped away.
You demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt you do not understand the concept of minimum standards of objective inquiry.
There are few "facts" in this case. The only information anyone has about these events come from a small group of select individuals who generated an even smaller number of reports about an incident they may or may not completely understand.
As of right now I acknowledge about three "facts"
1.Shots were fired.
2. Two men are dead.
3.Of the dead and injured only one who was at the orginal incident is still alive.
Everything else is pretty much speculation. Police logs, radio transmissions, analysis of on scene evidence, meticulous review of diaries,medications,personal histories etc. may possibly result in other indisputable "facts".
I have no access to any of that material. The reporters covering this story may or may not have access to some or all of that material.
One fact IS certain: YOU have no access to that material and have not demonstrated any ability to interpret it if you did.
Those are the facts with which I am familiar and which I will be pleased to debate.
Best regards,
1.Shots were fired.
2. Two men are dead.
3.Of the dead and injured only one who was at the orginal incident is still alive.
Everything else is pretty much speculation.
Really? I thought more people died that day in Waco than you are claiming here.
You won't consider these facts because that would compromise your desperate hope to discover that the police had marked Matthews for a rubbing out months or years ago and instigated a firefight to make that happen.
It's one of those 'principle' things, dontcha know.
Sir or Madam,
I have not used any derogatory terms addressing you.
I expect you to observe the same etiquette when you address me.
I will not respond to any more comments from you until you demonstrate better manners.
These series of threads aren't about Matthews, Taylor, speeding tickets, or even Matthews' personal vision of the Constitution. These threads are about using one man's death and another man's slaughter to initiate ad hominem attacks against ALL THOSE who believe the US Constitution is one creating a limited government of enumerated powers.
"snip" to #262
It's always been my Free Republic. God gave me Jim Robinson and Jim Robinson gave me a place to speak freely. I even bought a piece of it, or at least donated enough to take pride in what is here and what I have helped wrought. Free Republic is as much mine as it is yours, I am just taking a bit more personal pride in it.
I refuse to get into a 'pithing contest' over checkbooks and donations. You have NO idea how much others on this thread have donated. And your earlier post, #187 above, tells me you wanted, from the beginning, to hijack this thread from a discussion about a COP KILLER to something YOU wanted to discuss. Your statement that "you take a bit more personal pride in it" (meaning FR) than others... says it all.
Your arrogance speaks volumes.
There is NO common sense here, only a circular arguement.
I know how badly you need to identify with the guys who wear the white hats -- and you can.
But you're not their friend if you endorse policy which gets them killed.
Yes but they didn't write the one these nuts follow. They make up their own constitution, insert missing parts and remove the parts they don't like.
No. You think the Founders were terrorists. I don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.