Yo-Yo's New Hero Charlie Sheen Tried to Kill Denise Richards

No, seriously. Check out this People.com article. According to divorce papers filed by Denise Richards, she says Charlie "The New Hero Of the Crazy Left" Sheen "threatened to kill her on multiple accounts after she confronted him about his addiction to prescription drugs, his addiction to pornography , and his addiction to gambling."

Hey, Yo-Yo, what do you think of your new hero now? You still think this nutcase knows what he's talking about when he claims the Guv'ment was responsible for 9/11?

Oops.

On the bright side, at least now we know what caused Charlie to go all loony about 9/11. "...gambling, pill-popping and violent mood swings" will do it everytime.

 

This is coming from someone who wanted intellectual discussions.

Well Mr. Intellectual, if you had any common sense at all (probably don't) you would have realised these are just allegations made by someone with motivations to lie.

Not to mention (if you knew how read, which you obviously don't) I never claimed Charlie Sheen to be my "hero" or anything else. He's simply the tool that the average dumb American will pay attention to because he's famous. Of course you would have already known that, if you had read my posts.

Hmm.. what do you know: Charlie Sheen denies abuse charges by Ex-wife

 

Yes. That describes yo-yo perfectly.

 

I'm curious - these are allegations yet to be resolved in a court of law; and Sheen denies their veracity, correct? If so, why are they received as truth at this point, and further used to excoriate a member of this forum?

The "People Magazine" article also says the judge continues to allow Sheen visitation rights with his children, a toddler and an infant. I can't know, but wonder, if the preponderance of the evidence at this stage is so conclusive - would this judge allow this murderer-to-be visitation rights with his children?

Further, whatever may be the truth, someone's opinion on a given issue is his opinion on the issue. If this opinion is right, or wrong, it is right or wrong on the merits of the opinion - not whether his moral character generally is or is not up to snuff.

Ridiculous.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Oh, of course, you're right. Moral character has NOTHING to do with truth.

What's the meaning of "is" again?

 

<Sigh>.


I'm not sure, but I heard one guy, a petty thief, a drug user and an occasional liar, lived in Berlin, 1933.

He didn't vote for Hitler because he thought the guy was just wrong on the issues. He especially didn't like the part about "lebensraum" because he knew it likely meant a bad war.

Another guy, a convicted embezzler, during the Vietnam war, though opposing the war, came out also opposing the horrible treatment given vets returning home.

I think both may have been right. But I won't even listen to them because their nefarious lives at home speak volumes about the world at large.

Does that help, Jack?

 

Charlie Sheen is just the bad seed of Martin Sheen. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. I am amazed that anyone is surprised when he shows us all what a fuckup he is.

 

Like these allegations:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=67224

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=69373

or when those allegations are proven false:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060327/wl_nm/iraq_mosque_usa_dc_1

and never a word of retraction? Interesting to see who goes along with *some* allegations, and who doesn't.

 

Wow, your anologies are so ingenious that I'm left mesmerized. Either that, or I'm rolling my eyes too hard and have just pulled a muscle. Either/or.

 

Now, now, GTech, as we all know by now, only yo-yo is allowed to make threads based purely on allegations. You know, like how a has-been actor with a prostitution addiction alleges that Dubya fixed 9/11. That sort of stuff.

 

Jack, you can do what you would like, of course. But you don't help your point. I grow tired of hammering members here simply because we don't like them, or their points of view. I have a good deal of respect for folks I most often disagree with - I'd include Will here, among others - but I respect, in the main, what they have to say because they back it up with clear thinking and cogent argument. I may not agree with them (often, as we look at the same history, facts, or other "objective criteria" and see things differently), but I will listen to their point of view.

Best of luck.

 

I believe that we all agree that an argument against a person is invalid in debate.

However, outside of a debate, it's still fun to beat up on your opponents.

This thread is outside of any debate regarding the validity of Charlie Sheen's allegations against the United States.

 

I teach martial arts for a meager existence. That's where I get my mojo on.

 

Mojo in the dojo! That's cool too.

What do you teach? I've done a bit of Shorin Ryu, a bit of Judo, and some American Kenpo. I'm just about the clumsiest student any instructor has ever seen.

I've been thinking of starting up again, and this might just be the week. A friend of mine claims to have found a decent local dojo, and those are few and far between.

 

Congratulations, doesn't it feel good to be one of the millions of people who are manipulated by the nigthly news? I saw the news today on tv about Charlie Sheen, and the only thing I can say is I'm not surprised.

Funny thing is, they never said anything about his comments about 911 except on CNN, but they suddenly blast his dirtly laundry all over the news wires. And it is "conveniently" a few weeks after he makes the 911 comments.

Unlike many American who are manipulated, I see past this crap. They are simply waging a smear campaign against Sheen to make him look bad, but enlightened people won't fall for it. 911 was an inside job, and Charlie Sheen's personal life has no effect on what I believe.

 

It's pretty clear that Charlie is the one making himself look badly.

 

Do you have evidence to support that 9/11 was an inside job? Or should I say, do you have any "new evidence," as what you and a few others here have posted has been severely discredited, numerous times.

Is it not arrogant, to suggest that "millions" of people, other than yourself, are manipulated, because they don't see something that you see? Perhaps the problem isn't all the "millions" of other people? Many delusional people think they are perfectly normal.

 

Dude, tesla is Rowdy Roddy Piper.

Only tesla has the magic sunglasses that let him see that George Bush is actually an alien from planet Cygnus X-1, sent here to enslave all humans into the service of the dark lord Xenu.

 

Depends if someone is saying something to help his own goals being it financial or whatever...then you can question if someone is saying something that holds truth.

In the case of Charlie Sheen his motivation could be more media exposure so yes his intentions can be questioned because of his moral character.

But moral character is not something to considder as a consistent if the character of someone is simply bad or evil to say--

(at least that is my conclusion i get from your post...)

--''he or she has no moral character and is bad or evil and therefor everything he or she says is always completely wrong''

So if a person with no moral character whatever that may be in your opinion makes a statement it's by definition not true, a lie or made up?

This really amazes me if this is your reasoning