Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: bknight on 14 May 2010 22:13
On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:13:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>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.
From: Carbon on 14 May 2010 22:24
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>
>> 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 15 May 2010 00:56
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> 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.
From: Don Kirkman on 15 May 2010 02:18
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:03:26 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>In article <bsmru5d7da27in0jvapp9nkv4mm24iq462(a)4ax.com>, donsno2
>> >> 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?
>> 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
From: Alan Baker on 15 May 2010 05:36
"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?
> You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics
> better parents?
Would banning nicotine make nicotine addicts better or worse parents?
Vancouver, British Columbia