Brandon9000 wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The idea that the invasion was justified is merely my personal opinion. Moral justification is subjective, as should be obvious. While I have supported my opinion with argument for years all over A2K in many, many posts, I am under no obligation to prove it. Someone who accuses someone else of lying, however, is always obligated to prove it, as everyone knows, and as you should know. You sound as though the idea that an accuser is obligated to provide evidence is some novel new concept which you're unfamiliar with.
Since the president's lies are so very obvious, please give one quotation about Iraq which you believe to have been a lie, and then a bit of argument or evidence to support the idea that it was a lie. I suspect that you cannot because your accusations are untrue.
Brandon. You, like Bush, consistently (for years and years) ignore the facts (proof) that contradict your position and then you untruthfully claim that no one has presented proof that contradicts your position. You are being dishonest and untruthful. Accordingly, over the years that you've been posting, you have acquired a reputation on the A2K community for untruthfulness.
If you were in the midst of litigation, Brandon, the opposing party might desire to impeach your credibility by bringing forward reputation witnesses to testify as to your reputation for untruthfulness. Probably several of us would take the stand, establish a foundation that you belong to the same A2K community that we belong to, that we've been following your postings and the community's opinion of the truthfulness of your postings, and testify that you have a reputation in the community for being untruthful----a big fat liar. Members of this A2K community have had sufficient contacts with you to justify an opinion of your reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness. We wouldn't have to prove any lies----we would only be stating your reputation for being a liar.
Accordingly, your statement that the accusation that someone is a liar must always be proven by establishing proof of the alleged lies is FALSE (accordingly, you've been untruthful AGAIN).
BUSH has a reputation for untruthfulness. He lacks credibility and trustworthiness. It's our collective judgment that counts. Hence, BUSH is a LIAR.
Case closed.
Were you to produce a witness in court that I have a reputation for dishonesty, my lawyer would immediately have the testimony stopped on the grounds that it is hearsay . . . (blah, blah, ignorant rant, blah).
Your lawyer's "hearsay" objection would be overruled on two grounds.
1. The rules of evidence expressly allow your credibility to be impeached via reputation evidence. See, e.g., Federal Rules of Evidence:
Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness
(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character.
The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
2. Reputation evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. See:
Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(21) Reputation as to character. Reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.
* * *
Now that you know about the rules of evidence, perhaps you will review them and try to understand what you're talking about before spouting off about matters of "proof."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm
Wheres the sense of humor here anyway?
