Reply With Quote
So it's "pound O'Keefe and friends in the ass prison."
That was still a stunningly stupid scheme they are purporting.
I've never been. Am I too late?
So it's "pound O'Keefe and friends in the ass prison."
That was still a stunningly stupid scheme they are purporting.
10101011111010101010101010100001010111101010101010 101001010
I doubt they will get jail time. No wiretapping as first reported. They said they were seeing if the Senators office were really answering their phones of just letting them ring. Makes sense.
They were never charged with wiretapping.
111010 it 10101000010 010101010 101010 ass 010101010 prison
I know but some news outlets were reporting they might have been trying too.
I think the reporting has progressed past the larval stage, contemporary with at least some of the still emerging facts. It has in this thread, at least.
Original thought is over-rated anyway - for instance, any post by MB...
Wonder how long it took Sperminator to find that - hey sperminator, while you were wasting your time looking for that post I was making $500 today...
I'm sure there's a youtube video that could have said that better....ass-hat
Very extreme originality verges on total idiocy anyway. Why make an aesthetic god of it?
If stupidity is the only criteria you'd be doing life, with no possibility of parole...
Why is it other criminals can be judged by their lack of judgement but not O'Keefe? This speaks highly about the ACORN case no matter what closet wing-nuts like MB say...if O'Keefe is capable of this, he is certainly capable about lying about the contents of the highly edited Acorn tapes...Why won't he release the unedited tapes? See, like this doesn't matter to wing-nuts..
Mr. O'Keefe is not a con yet Dan.Why is it other criminals can be judged by their lack of judgement but not O'Keefe?
He's been convicted of nothing. He hasn't even been tried yet. Has he even been indicted?
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-29-2010 at 12:13 AM. Reason: Has he even been indicted?
Presumption of innocence until conviction?
Has it terrorism caused it to shrink?
@Dan: Is it somehow passe' to refer to the presumption of innocence?
Is every guy in the bag aprioristically a bad guy? Did the ongoing terrorist threat finally turn your brains to porridge, too? WTF?
Seriously, the guy was attempting to gain telephone access to a lead member of a congressional Homeland Security committee...if his name was Abdul Mohamed would you have such a passe' at ude toward his innocence?
Me?
yes, I would.
It's not passe' yet, Dan. Not for guys named James O'Keefe.
And not even for guys with funny Arabic-sounding names.
I'm in amazed I have to go through this. What country am I in again?
Did Texas secede and nobody told me?
O'Keefe is getting sued in civil court and facing criminal indictment in three states in the Acorn case alone...now he faces new criminal charges in the Landreau case...that's enough history for me..you can have him over for dinner if you want..
Sure, it's a troubling pattern. But calling him a criminal is proleptic, subjunctive case. Referring to a state contrary to fact.
Perhaps O'Keefe's upcoming legal ordeals will prove you right, Dan, but until then it's a bit hasty to call him a criminal. JMO.
I get that you've already drawn your own conclusions and that your opinion is more or less settled. I don't think I could change that. I only wanted to emphasize the erstwhile commonplace of giving the benefit of a doubt to a man who hasn't been convicted of anything yet. You will go your way, and I will go mine.
C'est la guerre.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-06-2010 at 04:17 AM. Reason: OK, he's a petty criminal. You can say that now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
