Kerry shows somes backbone (FINALLY!!!)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm not worng, I simply said it is an incident of suspicion. If you don't think so, fine. But I think it's suspicious, especially when she wasn't even given a f*cking ticket.

How about once a conviction is overturned it is as if it never existed

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

How about once a conviction is overturned it is as if it never existed

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

Yes it does, that conviction does not exist. Once again, when an appellate court overturns a conviction, it is as if it never happened - that defendant can truthfully say he was never ever convicted - period - end of story. The conviction never existed. Again that does not mean ON did not do it. It just means he was never ever convicted of it because the original conviction was null and void. This is not a difficult concept for 99.9% of the rest of us

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes it does, that conviction does not exist. Once again, when an appellate court overturns a conviction, it is as if it never happened - that defendant can truthfully say he was never ever convicted - period - end of story. The conviction never existed. Again that does not mean ON did not do it. It just means he was never ever convicted of it because the original conviction was null and void. This is not a difficult concept for 99.9% of the rest of us

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

He was convicted, it was overturned on a technicality. But he was a convict for almost four years.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

He was convicted, it was overturned on a technicality. But he was a convict for almost four years.

Nope - he never was - the overturning of the conviction negates it entirely - and you are being obstenate and silly

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Nope - he never was - the overturning of the conviction negates it entirely - and you are being obstenate and silly

No, I'm not. I don't care what language is used to cover up the fact that Oliver North was a convict for four years, he was.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, I'm not. I don't care what language is used to cover up the fact that Oliver North was a convict for four years, he was.

Nope - never was and you know it. You are wrong wrong wrong!!!! I know you know this and are being hard headed - which just proves my original comment here that you cannot admit being flat out, 100% WRONG

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Nope - never was and you know it. You are wrong wrong wrong!!!! I know you know this and are being hard headed - which just proves my original comment here that you cannot admit being flat out, 100% WRONG

The only thing I know was that Oliver North was a convict for four years. I'm not wrong when I say this. What would you say about a man who was in jail for murder for 15 years, only to be let out on a technicality? He was a guest of the state for 15 years, or that he was a convict for 15 years?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The only thing I know was that Oliver North was a convict for four years. I'm not wrong when I say this. What would you say about a man who was in jail for murder for 15 years, only to be let out on a technicality? He was a guest of the state for 15 years, or that he was a convict for 15 years?

YES YOU ARE

When an appellate court overturns a conviction, the conviction never existed. I suppose you could say, Oliver Noth was convicted and then four years later an appellate court overturned that conviction. The overturning of that conviction makes the statement "Oliver Noth was convicted" not true and never true because the conviction NEVER EXISTED How could he be convicted of something when that conviction never existed

Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain

Secondly, in the example you give, the man was in prison for a crime he was never convicted for. Get it!!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

YES YOU ARE

When an appellate court overturns a conviction, the conviction never existed. I suppose you could say, Oliver Noth was convicted and then four years later an appellate court overturned that conviction. The overturning of that conviction makes the statement "Oliver Noth was convicted" not true and never true because the conviction NEVER EXISTED How could he be convicted of something when that conviction never existed

Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain

No one is yanking your chain, Ollie North lived four years of his life as a convict.

Shall I have it engraved on my headstone?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No one is yanking your chain, Ollie North lived four years of his life as a convict.

Shall I have it engraved on my headstone?

No he did not - he was never convicted - show me the valid conviction. You cannot and you know it. Again, yes he lived his life for four years as a convict, but then the appellate court's overturning of that verdict erases the convict label and the erasure applies retroactively. Be as hard headed as you want, but ON was NEVER CONVICTED!!!!!!!

[dissention]

I find both of these statements contradictory:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No he did not

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, yes he lived his life for four years as a convict

In the end, I don't care if they're contradictory, you yourself made my point.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I find both of these statements contradictory:


In the end, I don't care if they're contradictory, you yourself made my point.

No I did not - the conviction never existed. You want to tell only half the story (how unsurprising ). You want to say ON was a convict and then just stop there. Well, you cannot and be truthful at the same time - that is if truth is what you want to say. In the end, ON's conviction was overturned and he was in fact never convicted - the overturning of the conviction makes it impossible to say ON was ever convicted - period - end of story. That is not contradictory and you know it and are just being hard headed because ONCE AGAIN - you cannot admit being wrong, esp. where ON is concerned!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No I did not - the conviction never existed. You want to tell only half the story (how unsurprising ). You want to say ON was a convict and then just stop there. Well, you cannot and be truthful at the same time - that is if truth is what you want to say. In the end, ON's conviction was overturned and he was in fact never convicted. That is not contradictory and you know it and are just being hard headed because ONCE AGAIN - you cannot admit being wrong, esp. where ON is concerned!!!

Darling, this is what I said:

Originally Posted by dissention

No one is yanking your chain, Ollie North lived four years of his life as a convict.

To which you said:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No he did not

Which you chased down with this cocktail:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, yes he lived his life for four years as a convict

To which I responded with:

Originally Posted by dissention

I find both of these statements contradictory.

Which they are.

[strandinthewind]

Never convicted one time
Never convicted two times
OOOOOOHHOOOOOOOOOOOOo
Dissention is wrong again
Ba Dum Ba Dum Ba Dum - Bum Bum Bum



Again, the ability to use the word convict when referring to those four years ceased when the conviction was overturned and you know it.