Hal 9000

There is no evidence - zilch! And, as far as consistency, that went out window when the women were found to exchange 5000 emails...some of which, directly involve details of the case.

Well, throw out some ideas and we'll discuss their merits or shortcomings.

The alternative would be to assume that the accuser is telling the truth - or give the accuser's words more power. We criticize societies like Islam that makes a woman's word half value of a man's, so why would we reverse the theory and give a woman's word more power than the man? There may be flaws in the system, but putting a man behind bars who is potentially innocent doesn't sit well with me. How many men have been released from prison because DNA showed them to be falsely convicted? Remember David Milgard?

Why would I hope for Trudeau to fail?

I have to explain what a potential innocent is; Really? It is a person who is potentially innocent.

Whatever one thinks of Kent's opinion, it's pretty clear that Trudeau is in tough with the other world and organization leaders. The whole do gooder thing is fine for keeping minions happy, but these people are in a whole other league.

As it should be. The less responsibility we put on the Crown to actually prove their cases, the more danger we're in as a society. I'd like to believe complainants and help them ease whatever they're going through, but we just can't do that if it means putting potential innocents in prison or labelling them offenders.

Simple deductions. Because you people have such a difficult time explain your points, we are forced to extract tidbits of info. Cybercoma has suggested that the inevitable loss will be due to "procedural Issues". You have backed him up by saying that that includes not preparing the complaintants. You have commented that the women weren't prepared well enough - and I somewhat agree. But they were prepared as good as the Crown deemed necessary . The simple deduction is that we should consider this poor, albeit accomplished preparation as a procedural error and back to what cyber suggested (and you backed), not allow someone to go free based on errors in procedural issues. I fully agree that the Crown messed up big time, but that's just how it goes sometime. I would rather see Ghomeshi walk free, then send him to prison while not 100% sure of guilt - and based on this trial, no one other than him (and maybe not even him) knows his level of guilt.

You can't just suggest that because the Crown wasn't good enough, we should determine that to be a procedural issue and enter a guilty verdict.

So, what procedural issues got in the way of this trial?

I think it's the police's job to take the statement/complaint and pass it over to the Crown if need be. I don't think cops interrogate complainants too much. I know that if a woman calls the cops on a domestic, the cops don't try to sort out the truth, they take the man away to jail - nearly every time. Maybe some women don't feel comfortable with telling the cops every detail, and prefer to talk to a lawyer.

I just don't have time for long responses, I'll get to that tomorrow.

Don't be coy, You know what I want.

I challenged you you tell me how (based on the evidence given) you would side on this case if you could; guilty or not guilty. And you won't answer, neither will cyber. Maybe OGFT will tell us how he'd vote.

No Txt

I don't know the details of US law, I'll let big guy and BC sort that out. But any woman that wants to fight in the military should be able to, and if so, she should be given exactly the same standards and responsibilities to her post that the men have. If that means volunteer so be it, if it means draft eligible - same thing.

Sure I do, but seeing you guys have such certitude in the silliest of ideologies, makes it very easy. You, OGFT and cyber have really painted yourselves into the corner - I've merely pointed it out.

Well then maybe explain this comment in a way we'll understand; cybercoma - So you're pretty sure he did it, but you think he should go free due to procedural issues. Is it any wonder victims rarely come forward? And, what do you consider "procedural Issues"?

You see, It only took 4 pages to agree, but common sense wins again.

OK! If Trump"s poilicies or words are dangerous, please tell me why and/or provide cite's?

Dude, I made my point 3 pages ago, and you guys are arguing against my point. I think I know the point I was making. You want to try and change the point without addressing what I said because you seem to have no retort for my initial (and only) point. That is; the use of fear tactics by the left. Address or not (you won't), I don't care.

Hey, i get that calling republicans "racist" "hateful" and "bigoted" is in the first paragraph of the manual and I accept that, but we're not talking about that, that has never been my point or something that I'll argue right here. Lets go back to the point of the left wingers using fear. Read this and tell me why Hillary makes this statement“ I think for weeks, you know, you and everybody else were just bringing folks to hysterical laughter and all of that,” Clinton told the host. “But now he has gone way over the line. And what he’s saying now is not only shameful and wrong – it’s dangerous.” Trump’s rhetoric was harming the nation’s ability to fight the rise of the Islamic State, feeding the group “propaganda” it could use to recruit, Clinton said. “This latest demand that we not let Muslims into the country really plays right into the hands of the terrorists,” she said. “I don’t say that lightly, but it does. He is giving them a great propaganda tool, a way to recruit more folks from Europe and the United States. And because it’s kind of crossed that line, I think everybody and especially other Republicans need to stand up and say ‘Enough, you’ve gone too far.’”

You're exhausting, you really are. Ive never seen somebody intentionally miss the point as much as you do - it's gotta be intentional.

Good god man!

Just face it, the Crown didn't want her to testify - if they did, she would've testified. It was likely the only thing they won throughout the entire trial.