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> 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 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> > 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 15 May 2010 00:56 "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 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 >@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 15 May 2010 05:36
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> |