Originally Posted by Otter (Post 14302501)

Innocent until proven guilty.</br>
Many of those "Yes" names don't surprise me one bit.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 14230327)

Yeah. It's all the fault of those hormonal, entrapping, gold-digging bitches and the white-knighting SJW.

He obviously hit and choked her because he loved her, and I'm sure he beat the shit out of his three-year-old for the same reason.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 14230386)

Who. The. ****. Cares. If. The. Chiefs. Get. Compensation.

Some things are more important than football.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 14230400)

Yes, and they should likely both be in prison because if she had told this to the DA they'd almost certainly be able to prosecute because they'd have physical signs of abuse with corroborating testimony and evidence from an adult.

She sold her child out, there's no doubt. She's a shitbag. But Hill is worse, and people are trying to contort themselves into a scenario wherein he's setup and the only thing that has anything to do with is the jersey on his back. It's ****ing sickening.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 14302524)

Folks, never go full reerun.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14302548)

Yes. He got his second chance and I don't care that he's innocent. This distraction wasn't worth it to the team and he should post for that. Let some other team deal with that headache.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14302548)

I don't care that he's innocent. .

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 14302572)

Daddy Hate, I’m afraid to tell you this but we aren’t gonna be able to fix stupid.

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 14301598)

You should have been here in 08. Sweet jeebus, it got to the point where we were like, "is this dude just ****ing with us"? LMAO
Watching Dane and Hamas have to explain shit 3 or more times repeatedly was hilarious because eventually Dane would just lose his shit and go nuclear. ROFL
Until 2008, I had never witnessed anyone with the ability to make simple sentence or statement a case study in obstinate counter-reality:

"The cat chases a yarn ball".

SAUTO:

"What does this mean"?
"How do you know what this cat does, were you there"?
"I don't believe this cat ever chased anything; link"?

And on and on and on... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14302548)

Yes. He got his second chance and I don't care that he's innocent. This distraction wasn't worth it to the team and he should post for that. Let some other team deal with that headache.

Originally Posted by SAUTO (Post 14302583)

And I haven't "****ed with" anyone's posts. Just quoted what he wrote himself, with links for context.


Not my fault he's a flip flopping bitch

Originally Posted by New World Order (Post 14302710)

It doesn't mean anything but I would just like to say after voting 'yes', I changed my mind 2 days later which was long before most believed Reek was possibly innocent.

I should have learned though. I initially drank the Kool-aid.

A real shame.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14302548)

Yes. He got his second chance and I don't care that he's innocent. This distraction wasn't worth it to the team and he should post for that. Let some other team deal with that headache.

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 14302708)

And it's not our fault you're a ****. ****!-****!-****!-****!-****!
( That's 5 times the ****iness of the national average! )