Originally posted by: rahvin
You see, here is where you are arguing against your own argument. It would be easier for you to just take a punching bag and beat your self silly. First, you say people can sue for anything they want, then you say I could not counter sue for court costs. Which is it? Can or Can't? It really doesn't appear very smart for you to take both sides of the same issue.It makes things very confusing, which, is the state your argument has been in all along. To go one further, If I hired a lawyer to defend myself against your hypothetical ' burn your house down' scenario, of course I could sue for costs. By what possible logic would you consider that 'inane?'
So smack my ass and call me sally. Of course you could countersue for anything you wish, your chances of achieving victory would be as miniscule as mine. In all likelyhood the case would be dismissed in under a minute with no damages awarded. If the case was handled in small claims court you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway. Your certainty that you could win countersuit damages is the inane part and would depend entirely on the jurisdiction in question and the judge/jury presiding.
Well, you know what they say, you can put a dress and lipstick on a pig, and call her Monique, but she is still just a pig. What strikes me as so funny about your entire debate, is that your original premise was "one could sue for anything. Those who think they need justification are idiots." Not an exact quote, but close. Now your premise is winning vs. losing. Dude, you are all over the place. Now you say "you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway." What Country are referring to exactly??? First, based on your ridiculous 'burned house down' scenario, I doubt seriously it would go to small claims court, unless you were living in a shoe or a box. Second. Small claims, civil criminal, you name it, I can hire a laywer anytime I want. Where do you get your information from??
I don't have to try for a point, I made a point. You sited a passage in the constitution as if you wrote it yourself, CAPS and all. Don't get mad at me if you screwed it up. Being innocent and presuming one's innocence is two completely different things. I don't know you. How am I supposed to know what you imply? Personally, however, I still think it was simply a lack of knowledge of the passage rather than an implication. Based on what I've read so far from you, it's more than just a guess.
If I had quoted the constitution I would have put it in quotes now lets not go making assumptions about what I am and am not saying.
That is EXACTLY what I didn't do. I didn't assume anything. I took the statment at face value, and you sited me for not getting the implication. Now you tell me NOT to make assumptions. For God Sakes man, make up your mind.
Regarding innocence. You can play word games till the cows come home, but it won't change the facts. Presuming someone is innocent, doesn't make them innocent. Geez, how much more simple can I put it???
The definition of presume is: "to expect or assume especially with confidence". Using this basis it is not incorrect of me to say that someone is innocent until convicted by a court of law. The court itself must presume innocence as stated in the constitution but the individual themselves are innocent under the law until convicted. But if you wish to continue arguing a completely worthless debate on the semantics of words go right ahead but I think I won't bother to respond because the point of your whole arguement is now based around an attack on the language used rather than the points made.
See above.
Why don't you spend some time actually arguing a legitimate point like trying to prove that it's illegal for DTV to sue someone for purchasing a device that DTV has good faith to believe the person is using to steal from them?
I did exactly that in a post prior to your gibberish. Now I am spending my time with this. In either case, you lost me with your convoluted logic. It's obvious that any intelligent debate with you is futile. When you can actually stand by one of your points for more than 10 seconds before contradicting yourself sentance after sentance after every tired sentance, let me know. Bye...