|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:21:42 GMT,
, "ride your bike" wrote: If we don't take matters into our own hands and do something about this now, then we are already prisoners of war. This is a *news* group. That's old. Where you been? -- zk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
The mantra of extremists:
"The government *always* lies to you." "The media *always* lies to you." "Big corporations *always* lie to you." "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
x-no-archive:yes
"Hunrobe" The mantra of extremists: "The government *always* lies to you." "The media *always* lies to you." "Big corporations *always* lie to you." "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says." You forgot this one: "You can take as gospel anything a person says when he RECANTS his confession!" and this one: "You can take as gospel anything the family of the confessed or convicted person says." Pat in TX |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
"But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted
of a crime says." =v= Red herring. I've followed this case and found little evidence for the government's allegations, though. The case for the prosecution hinged on emotional histronics and name-calling. A rational observer would not have found the defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is supposed to be the standard complied to. _Jym_ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
x-no-archive:yes
... "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says." =v= Red herring. I've followed this case and found little evidence for the government's allegations, though. The case for the prosecution hinged on emotional histronics and name-calling. A rational observer would not have found the defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is supposed to be the standard complied to. _Jym_ Well, sure, unless the defendant pleads guilty to something, which he apparently did. It looks as if there wasn't a trial to decide if he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because he pled guilty before the trial. We can't then say, "well he isn't guilty because he didn't have a trial." Pat in TX |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Land of the free....
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|