Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218877)

I suppose she could be, but neither you nor I will ever know.

Oh, wait, falconhater, I'd like you to meet MY POINT.


:doh:

Originally Posted by strato (Post 218880)

YouTube- Dream a Little Dream of Me
If she is a singer she is probably a liitle freaky..like me..

Originally Posted by strato (Post 218891)

Brah im a blues player..i live in misery everyday ..lol

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218693)

Because 'the legal thing' is the topic of discussion. Have you read the entire thread? The issue is that there are some (you and falconhater for sure it would appear) that are ready to drop the hammer on Ben and wish some pretty horrible things on him based on nothing more than your own assessment of the situation and the word of 2 or 3 admittedly far-past-drunk college girls who made statements to the police, some of which can't be deciphered because they were beyond wasted when the wrote it! My point, as if you didn't know, is that those kinds of things went out with witch hunts, but you boys have at it - and pray you're never falsely accused right? LOL

Ben is stupid. On that I think we all agree, but the 'hang 'em high' attitude went out with witch hunts in the 1600's. You two guys should get hip with the program.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218922)

I'm glad you like to LOL. Because you laughing shows how crazy you are. Two basic questions for you. Since you asked if I read the whole thread I will ask you a question. Show me where I display a hang em high attitude and say Ben should be punished. Don't quote 4 paragraphs of text. Since you accuse me of it, I challenge you to quote in this thread where I say he should be punished. Go ahead, take your time.

Secondly, you just spouted off paragraphs about the SC. Does this make the statement I made about the presumption of innocence not being in the constitution incorrect? Both these questions are simple so you should be able to handle them. Well, we shall see.

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218958)

Dude, jumping in behind falconhater was your mistake. That you can possibly find a way to argue with - not my words - but the law of the land, which is what you're debating against since I've said nothing in this thread that wasn't purely based on perception in the eyes of the law, says everything that needs to be said. You have lost this 'debate', whether you know it or not. It's ok by me if you wanna tell yourself otherwise. Whatever helps you sleep big man.

The presumption of innocence not being in the constitution is irrelevant, and in fact is pointless to the discussion. You found that in Wikipedia and made the mistake of thinking it proved your misguided point, however the Supreme Court smacked that down for you. All I did was copy and paste big fella. ;)

Now, you wanna debate me do ya? Pick the topic, but pick something you know about ok, 'cause it's pretty clear all you know about this particular topic is what you can find on
Wikipedia. I'd like to say I welcome the challenge, but in all honesty I don't think 'challenge' is the right word.


Well how about you answer the questions I posed? I knew you wouldn't

Now, before we're done here, allow me to show you where you goofed, k?



Dead wrong...IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Not being charged = innocent IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Until such time as a guilty verdict is read in court the accused is INNOCENT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, and should you disagree, then tell me bright one, what it is, exactly, that he is: 'kinda innocent' - 'partially guilty' - IN THE EYES OF THE LAW?. Yes, I am laughing at your 'superior' debating abilities oh barrister of brilliance. L O L

Don't believe me. Pick a random lawyer and ask 'em, and then be man enough to come back to this thread and be humble, confess your ignorance, and apologize for wasting my time.