What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Dance around all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are saying I made statements that I never made. You slow witted nimrod.

"So what happened to “You can't provide proof that I said without seeing **** with my own eyes it didn't happen”? I actually provided proof in a quote of your own words.
You can’t even recall your own words".

This is what you quoted dumbass "Your words. Quoted verbatim. Yet again: “If she yells **** and I am on the jury, I will not convict without visual evidence."

A woman accuses a man of ****. He is arrested. RobGMN is on the jury. The evidence is presented. (Evidence - The woman said he did it) RobGMN returns a verdict of guilty. This is what I WILL NOT DO. You would literally just take her word that she was *****. Again, maybe she was actually *****. Her word is not proof though. She could be lying. But you would ignore that fact so you can keep arguing with me. Let's set aside you being an ******* for a moment. If she was actually ***** Rob, what proof would you accept?

I quoted you words VERBATIM, you nitwit. How TF can you be so dense as to claim you never said them here? Do you REALLY think repeating a lie makes it truth?
Your words: “If she yells **** and I am on the jury, I will not convict without visual evidence.” Do you not know that “visual” is something you see with your eyes?
But that is 100% a verbatim quote of your words. Stop denying it.

A statement that a person makes is not evidence, kid. And unlike you, I don’t think a jury just decides based on a single claim a person makes. There’s accuser testimony, defendant testimony, expert witness testimony, law enforcement testimony, possibly evidence, examination, cross-examination, and so forth.
While I find it funny that you think you know what I would do as a juror, it is far too complicated a process for your question to be answered. By me, anyway.
The fact you even pose the question that way suggests you know little to nothing of the process that you are arguing about.
It’s a bad idea to argue things you don’t understand. Maybe learn a little before you show off more ignorance.

And tell us why you won’t believe a **** happened without seeing it occur, yet you believe mass voter fraud without a single person being able to pony up even the smallest shred of evidence.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I quoted you words VERBATIM, you nitwit. How TF can you be so dense as to claim you never said them here? Do you REALLY think repeating a lie makes it truth?
Your words: “If she yells **** and I am on the jury, I will not convict without visual evidence.” Do you not know that “visual” is something you see with your eyes?
But that is 100% a verbatim quote of your words. Stop denying it.

A statement that a person makes is not evidence, kid. And unlike you, I don’t think a jury just decides based on a single claim a person makes. There’s accuser testimony, defendant testimony, expert witness testimony, law enforcement testimony, possibly evidence, examination, cross-examination, and so forth.
While I find it funny that you think you know what I would do as a juror, it is far too complicated a process for your question to be answered. By me, anyway.
The fact you even pose the question that way suggests you know little to nothing of the process that you are arguing about.
It’s a bad idea to argue things you don’t understand. Maybe learn a little before you show off more ignorance.

And tell us why you won’t believe a **** happened without seeing it occur, yet you believe mass voter fraud without a single person being able to pony up even the smallest shred of evidence.

Damn... you are getting dumber and dumber.

Visual evidence. A video is visual evidence.

If I saw it happen with my own eyes I would not be on the jury, I would be a witness.

Do not even attempt to educate me on the workings of the criminal court systems you ignorant assclown. You are one of those arrogant know-it-all fuckers who thinks he can school a mechanic because he read a book on vehicle repair.

I like your question avoidance... I expected nothing less from a coward. Demand answers but refuse those most simple questions.
You can't take her word cause she could be lying.
You can't use semen taken from her ****** because it could have been consensual.
Vaginal abrasions - Rough ***.
Just about any excuse can be countered which causes doubt... however... if there is some way to show this man attack and force *** upon this woman... well that would be hard to argue... what kind of evidence could leave no doubt.............?

Now stfu.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

I disagree.

What proof would you accept short of a video? Are you going to take her word? A woman can easily hurt herself or put make up on to look like bruises. I guess you are now saying that you will take her word for it.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

What proof would you accept short of a video? Are you going to take her word? A woman can easily hurt herself or put make up on to look like bruises. I guess you are now saying that you will take her word for it.

Uh, no. From the beginning I have said people lie. Women are liars and are vindictive. This is one of the main reasons I said I cannot CONVICT based on her word. Video proof is the only proof I would accept and I explained what kind of video evidence. It's clear you guys who want to challenge me all the time conveniently forget shit.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Uh, no. From the beginning I have said people lie. Women are liars and are vindictive. This is one of the main reasons I said I cannot CONVICT based on her word. Video proof is the only proof I would accept and I explained what kind of video evidence. It's clear you guys who want to challenge me all the time conveniently forget shit.

I guess you're saying that you will never take a battered woman's word or pictures as proof that she was abused. You need video proof of the beating in order to convict? You're funny man.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I guess you're saying that you will never take a battered woman's word or pictures as proof that she was abused. You need video proof of the beating in order to convict? You're funny man.

That is exactly what I am saying. It's nothing to joke about. If I was a Democrat I am sure you people would not be talking shit. Weird that I would need proof for this and you guys want to be assholes but on the flip side you demand proof for the dumbest things. Every one of you hypocrites need to just stop trying to call people out for shit you do daily. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Damn... you are getting dumber and dumber.

Visual evidence. A video is visual evidence.

If I saw it happen with my own eyes I would not be on the jury, I would be a witness.

Do not even attempt to educate me on the workings of the criminal court systems you ignorant assclown. You are one of those arrogant know-it-all fuckers who thinks he can school a mechanic because he read a book on vehicle repair.

I like your question avoidance... I expected nothing less from a coward. Demand answers but refuse those most simple questions.
You can't take her word cause she could be lying.
You can't use semen taken from her ****** because it could have been consensual.
Vaginal abrasions - Rough ***.
Just about any excuse can be countered which causes doubt... however... if there is some way to show this man attack and force *** upon this woman... well that would be hard to argue... what kind of evidence could leave no doubt.............?

Now stfu.

A video would be witnessing it WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Also known as SEEING it happen.
You won’t believe it happens unless you see it happen. Victim testimony be damned.
But the election was stolen from Trump because he SAID so. Yep. You totally trust the guy who lied to the public 21,000+ documented times.

You should let SOMEONE school you. For fvck sake, you think a persons can’t be convicted without evidence. That’s elementary knowledge.

Avoidance? Not at all, child. Your question is one that I cannot answer, because I know that the decision is far more complicated than your question allows for. It’s simple, alright. Far TOO simple.
“If she was actually ***** Rob, what proof would you accept?” pretty much ignores the legal process that would be involved in such a decision. You would obviously be shitty as a juror.

We all know that you think every woman who claims **** is a liar. It’s a really odd position to take, but could tie in with other things you have told us about your interaction with women, and conveniently ignores that men will lie to get away with things. You’ve done it here.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

A video would be witnessing it WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Also known as SEEING it happen.
You won’t believe it happens unless you see it happen. Victim testimony be damned.
But the election was stolen from Trump because he SAID so. Yep. You totally trust the guy who lied to the public 21,000+ documented times.

You should let SOMEONE school you. For fvck sake, you think a persons can’t be convicted without evidence. That’s elementary knowledge.

Avoidance? Not at all, child. Your question is one that I cannot answer, because I know that the decision is far more complicated than your question allows for. It’s simple, alright. Far TOO simple.
“If she was actually ***** Rob, what proof would you accept?” pretty much ignores the legal process that would be involved in such a decision. You would obviously **** as a juror.

We all know that you think every woman who claims **** is a liar. It’s a really odd position to take, but could tie in with other things you have told us about your interaction with women, and conveniently ignores that men will lie to get away with things. You’ve done it here.

Look how you are trying to spin this so you can keep pushing your stolen election narrative. MAN you really want to argue about that. LOL. The only way you can feed your addiction and argue about it is to mention Trump lol.

Yes, you are avoiding the question. You can't answer because you can't Google the answer? I ask YOU what proof YOU would accept. I am asking you personally, not for any legal process. I want YOUR acceptable proof. I would suck as a juror? Depends on how you look at it. Maybe for the prosecutor.

Stop speaking for me, I did not give you permission to do that. I did not say all women who claim to have been ***** are liars. I said women lie and are vindictive. The actual number of women who have been legitimately ***** is far lower than reported numbers.

Lastly, if you have no proof, no evidence... what are you convicting a person with? Hurt feelings? GTFO of here, stupid.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

That is exactly what I am saying. It's nothing to joke about. If I was a Democrat I am sure you people would not be talking shit. Weird that I would need proof for this and you guys want to be assholes but on the flip side you demand proof for the dumbest things. Every one of you hypocrites need to just stop trying to call people out for shit you do daily. It's pretty pathetic.

Like proof of mass voter fraud? Like proof that the vaccine doesn't work and is bad for you? Ya Democrats are weird.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Like proof of mass voter fraud? Like proof that the vaccine doesn't work and is bad for you? Ya Democrats are weird.

Is that your best comeback? Cause yall use it a lot lol.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Is that your best comeback? Cause yall use it a lot lol.

It's because you never provide proof for 90% of the stuff you say. I know percentages and averages aren't your strong suit. I'm sorry if I confused you.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It's because you never provide proof for 90% of the stuff you say. I know percentages and averages aren't your strong suit. I'm sorry if I confused you.

I could go away for a year and you would still be here repeating the same shit. I guess it is true... you peaked a long time ago. I guess you are just riding the wave out till it crashes into the beach.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Look how you are trying to spin this so you can keep pushing your stolen election narrative. MAN you really want to argue about that. LOL. The only way you can feed your addiction and argue about it is to mention Trump lol.
There's no "spin" going on, simply pointing out what a flip-flopping hypocrite you are. You selectively apply rules and standards to fit your desired narrative.

Yes, you are avoiding the question. You can't answer because you can't Google the answer? I ask YOU what proof YOU would accept. I am asking you personally, not for any legal process. I want YOUR acceptable proof. I would suck as a juror? Depends on how you look at it. Maybe for the prosecutor.
Your question is too simplistic to be answered by anyone with an IQ above 85. It's like asking "Which chess move makes you win?" or "Is handling or power more important in a race?" Only a dolt would answer either question. The fact you think it can be answered shows you are clueless about the legal realities.

Stop speaking for me, I did not give you permission to do that. I did not say all women who claim to have been ***** are liars. I said women lie and are vindictive. The actual number of women who have been legitimately ***** is far lower than reported numbers.
If you refuse to believe without video proof, then you are presupposing all women who make the claim are lying. Guilty until proved innocent.
Where did you get your stats that there are far fewer rapes than are reported? Share the source, please.

Lastly, if you have no proof, no evidence... what are you convicting a person with? Hurt feelings? GTFO of here, stupid.
So, you're going to continue to hang on to the false belief that no proof = no conviction? Whoever told you that is wrong, and repeating it makes you seem ever more clueless, like several other battles of truth you choose to fight. And lose.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Look how you are trying to spin this so you can keep pushing your stolen election narrative. MAN you really want to argue about that. LOL. The only way you can feed your addiction and argue about it is to mention Trump lol.
There's no "spin" going on, simply pointing out what a flip-flopping hypocrite you are. You selectively apply rules and standards to fit your desired narrative.

Yes, you are avoiding the question. You can't answer because you can't Google the answer? I ask YOU what proof YOU would accept. I am asking you personally, not for any legal process. I want YOUR acceptable proof. I would suck as a juror? Depends on how you look at it. Maybe for the prosecutor.
Your question is too simplistic to be answered by anyone with an IQ above 85. It's like asking "Which chess move makes you win?" or "Is handling or power more important in a race?" Only a dolt would answer either question. The fact you think it can be answered shows you are clueless about the legal realities.

Stop speaking for me, I did not give you permission to do that. I did not say all women who claim to have been ***** are liars. I said women lie and are vindictive. The actual number of women who have been legitimately ***** is far lower than reported numbers.
If you refuse to believe without video proof, then you are presupposing all women who make the claim are lying. Guilty until proved innocent.
Where did you get your stats that there are far fewer rapes than are reported? Share the source, please.

Lastly, if you have no proof, no evidence... what are you convicting a person with? Hurt feelings? GTFO of here, stupid.
So, you're going to continue to hang on to the false belief that no proof = no conviction? Whoever told you that is wrong, and repeating it makes you seem ever more clueless, like several other battles of truth you choose to fight. And lose.

Cool story. Thanks yet one more time proving you will argue everything. Not sure how you say I am flip flopping anything when my stance hasn't changed on anything. In fact I keep reminding your *** of what I actually say over and over. Apparently you ignore it all. Anyway, I am bored with you. Go eat some dicks, I am sure you are starving for them.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

I could go away for a year and you would still be here repeating the same shit. I guess it is true... you peaked a long time ago. I guess you are just riding the wave out till it crashes into the beach.

And you never peaked.