It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Matter of perspective and opinion. I have used truth to refute this. Seems quite a few agree with me. In our justice system we don't use the standard of "shadow of a doubt", we use "reasonable doubt".
But you cannot refute the official designation of what is classified as sexual abuse. It is not ME that thinks so. It is the definition of the term that thinks so. You cannot just change the English language to meet your silly whims and need to obfuscate.
Maybe YOU can. I can't. That is my sexual region. Interaction there is going to be seen as sexual in nature from a biological (if not a conscious) level.
No, no need. We have seen your desparate grasping and untrue statements and ignorance of fact. No need to continue to make yourself a spectacle.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Death_Kron
There are no unanswered questions. Just more subterfuge. I believe we are done here.
Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Matter of perspective and opinion. I have used truth to refute this. Seems quite a few agree with me. In our justice system we don't use the standard of "shadow of a doubt", we use "reasonable doubt".
That's not answering my question, good job at misdirection From the video footage, it is not possible to determine whether the boys penis was touched or not, any jury would tell you the same, it's called insufficient evidence.
But you cannot refute the official designation of what is classified as sexual abuse. It is not ME that thinks so. It is the definition of the term that thinks so. You cannot just change the English language to meet your silly whims and need to obfuscate.
Once again, a pat down isn't sexual or done in a sexual manner.
Maybe YOU can. I can't. That is my sexual region. Interaction there is going to be seen as sexual in nature from a biological (if not a conscious) level.
Okay, I actually agree with you about the biological statement but really are you telling me that a few pats in that region are going to elicit a sexual response?
No, no need. We have seen your desparate grasping and untrue statements and ignorance of fact. No need to continue to make yourself a spectacle.
I'm not sure what you believe I've said is untrue but I'd say that if anyone, your the one who appears to be grasping, I've used your own quotes and sources against you numerous times and once again you have failed to answer various questions of mine or attempted to misdirect and confuse.
Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Well i honestly think that the whole anti movement will get huge support from drug traffickers, so they won't mind people jumping on the bandwagon.
Thanks for the reply and sources.
Its still wrong that it wasn't done in private and if he did set off the metal detector, he should have been allowed to remove the usual suspects, belt, loose change etc first.
If people are late for the flight it can't be securities fault, people should arrive earlier, so there is no excuse that they cant go to a private room.
edit on 25-11-2010 by kykweer because: (no reason given)