- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I would like to ask you then outright sir, do you believe wholeheartedly, that gays not only contributed to the failure of the Dutch battle in question.
And an openly gay military would lead to a weaker military?
I have no idea. I wasn't there.
Again, I leave that up to the military to decide. I have no direct knowledge or experience to base that off of.
That is why if the military does decide to let homosexuals serve openly you wont hear a peep out of me. If its forced upon them however, you will.
If you are going to lie about what you said Redress, you really should edit your response
You said:
The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple and full of exceptions. Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
"Hearsay" Evidence - Criminal Law
Now, please explain where hearsay evidence is even called that anywhere else but a court of law? And was he in a court of law? Nope. Wrong again Redress.
It really is pathetic for you to try and wiggle out of your own words when I can quote you so easily. You tried to pretend as usual to assign rules that never did apply in order to denigrate the evidence presented.
Once again your lies are exposed. Your attempted deceptions get more pathetic with every post.
I have no reason to doubt his word but you doubt it without any evidence.
The irony here is so thick you could cut it.
So you are calling him a liar without evidence.
You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.
And you have no history of him ever lying.
I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.
It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
So you are calling him a liar without evidence.
You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.
And you have no history of him ever lying.
I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.
It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
You are trying too hard. Let's look at an actual normal dictionary to see how most people use the word "hearsay". Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
–noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.
Interesting, no requirement mentioned for a court for something to be hearsay.
Now, the reason I doubt his word is because it's hearsay, and as such useless, and there is an actual report done on the situation(we call this "evidence") that comes to a different conclusion. You believe only what you want to believe, whereas the rest of us look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
Heresay may not be admissible in court when offered in testimony, but that also does not neccessarily make it false......
& there are exceptons to the hearsay rule......
It's not about whether it's true, it's about whether we can trust it to be true.
I do......
Just once I'd like to see some asshat call someone gay, a ***** or pansy, only to have them get their ass handed to them.
YouTube- Гопник против гомосексуала, малая садовая / Chav Vs Homosexual
I do......
Why?
........
You're gullible and/or biased though. That's why someone pointed out that a court of law would not trust it. You trust anything that supports your warped world view.
I don't hate them, I just hate when they flamingly flaunt it....Of course you do, because it is against gays and we all know how much you hate gays. You are prolly one of the ignorant people that thought only gays can get AIDS.
That was the case in the beginning, until gays on the 'down low' spread it to the hetero population.....
You are trying too hard. Let's look at an actual normal dictionary to see how most people use the word "hearsay". Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
–noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.
Interesting, no requirement mentioned for a court for something to be hearsay.
Now, the reason I doubt his word is because it's hearsay,
and as such useless, and there is an actual report done on the situation(we call this "evidence") that comes to a different conclusion. You believe only what you want to believe, whereas the rest of us look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
Boy, I loved that. I wish I'd been able to do that! Do you think that kid will be calling many more people "Faggot"?
What the hell is that suppose to mean?
NONE. ZERO. ZIP NADA. You have only your emotional feelings to base that on.
What a despicable excuse to distrust a man who served our country for decades honorably.
Aids started in the gay community, or do you dispute that?.....
I dont think the issue should be whether he's lying or not. I dont believe he is lying about what he was told.
But that doesn't make it fact that it was what caused the massacre, nor does it make the Dutch Chief of Staff right either, how do we know that man doesnt have massive prejudices?
And I would submit to you if this cheif of the army really does have a prejudice against homosexuals himself then we would have heard about it.
I don't know about that. He's Chief of Staff for the Dutch army. Not Fred Phelps. How much Public knowledge do you think exists about a dude's personal beliefs who was in charge years ago
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?