Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:53 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:34 pm, Snit wrote:
Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 1:05
PM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:

It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to
any sane, honest and honorable person.

I see. So, tell me, can you prove that you are your self?

Steve is mad that I offered evidence - very strong evidence - which
he could not refute.

Everyone refuted it... you started by saying that treaties are the
supreme law of the land and went downhill from there.

The original argument was about my views that a political he
likes

I don't like Bush.

had broken the law. Steve insisted the person could not be guilty of
doing so unless he was *found* guilty

Again... a third party can't make a statement saying someone else is
guilty without going through some sort of a 'finding' process... one
that should include facts.

(even though he was never tried or
even charged).

Yes, Snit. you made it clear how you feel you intuited Bush's guilt
with no 'finding' process being done by you at all. LOL!

LOL!

I made and supported an argument... one you never could refute so you
freaked out. In 2003. And you have yet to recover... clearly.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]