So YOUR wild-ass theories, "what ifs" and scenarios make impeccable sense and are grounded in reasoned logic? And mine are fevered paranoid, overwrought rantings of an oppressed, angry white male?
Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?
You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?
Just making sure, so I know how to proceed and play the game!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
'rat, my brother, you'd argue with a headlight if you thought there was any adventure in it.
You're TOTALLY in the wrong field, and are wasting your time with this journalism stuff. Get thee to a law school...you're missing your true calling! Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).
Shit, you could probably get the Devil himself off a shoplifting rap!
"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."
Think about it. You'd get to wear a cool suit and probably drive a pretty snazzy car!