From: bknight on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:13:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:54:16 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
>>> There are occasions where a cop has reasonable evidence that a crime
>>> has occurred. This law shouldn't be needed for the cop to pick up a
>>> person with such evidence. And it is not an unreasonable
>>> requirement for anybody who has been picked up for a crime to provide
>>> identification information.
>>>
>>> Speaking broken English or having an ethnic appearance is not in
>>> itself reasonable evidence that one is not a citizen.
>>
>>You are projecting. Projecting your biases onto others.
>
>What don't see where I said anything about biases. What are my
>biases that I am projecting?

The bias that you're unbiased. :-)
That rankles Bert.

BK
From: Carbon on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:05:34 -0500, bknight wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 22:57:19 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:31:10 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <clark-18AE4C.11152114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>>>> In article <MPG.26571432bedc66d3989f0d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
>>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>>>>>> In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
>>>>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a
>>>>>>> finding of innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have a presumption of innocence, unless guilt can be proved.
>>>>>> Innocent is, therefore, the status quo.
>>>>>
>>>>> A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is, until a finding of guilty is arrived at.
>>>
>>> The "wise" ramblings of a liberal mind.
>>
>>Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool?
>
> He isn't playing.

I am assuming that anyone who hits the jugular of stupidity as often as
Bert does has to be doing it deliberately.
From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4bedd5c5$0$4868$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:43:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <alangbaker-201299.01450114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> >> In article <MPG.26564053374fa0c7989ef4(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
> >> <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <sfjmu5h5ebhlmmtja8mpno8a503sr375gt(a)4ax.com>,
> >>> howard(a)brazee.net says...
> >>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe(a)bbz.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT
> >>>>> sent to trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a
> >>>>> "hearing," which is totally different from a trial. The normal
> >>>>> result is deportation.
> >>>>
> >>>> What if the person is innocent?
> >>>
> >>> Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have
> >>> proof of their authority to be in the US on their person at all
> >>> times. This is a federal law and a condition of their entry into the
> >>> US.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, there can be no innocence.
> >>
> >> Cite the actual law...
> >
> > Sorry, Canada Boy, I'm not interested in playing your game.
>
> What game would that be? Defending your bullshit?

You know the game Baker plays, Carbs.

-Greg


From: Don Kirkman on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:03:26 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <bsmru5d7da27in0jvapp9nkv4mm24iq462(a)4ax.com>, donsno2
>@charter.net says...

>> >> It's rare, but in fact there are times when, after considering all the
>> >> evidence against a defendant, the judge will pronounce him factually
>> >> innocent. Even Google knows about it. Close, but only a cigarillo.

>> >There are differences between pronouncements and findings.

>> Could you please elaborate?

Apparently not.

>> Do you honestly believe there is a material difference between a
>> finding and a signed court order pronouncing a person factually
>> innocent? And do you think a judge would sign such a pronouncement if
>> he was not convinced it was true?

>You have just made a distinction between the two, they are different.

You've apparently never heard the phrase "a distinction without a
difference."
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2(a)charter.net
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<f4dde301-6779-4317-ae04-21581e56ee27(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 7:45�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >
> > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have any of
> > >these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for them.
> >
> > Actually it's been explained a few times already. �Obviously you
> > haven't been paying attention.
>
> I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it.
> >
> > >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents
> > >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents?
> >
> > If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good
> > parents.
>
> A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal?

Yup.

> You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics
> better parents?

Would banning nicotine make nicotine addicts better or worse parents?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>