User Tag List

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 83

Thread: Dr. Ford's Lie-Detector Test a Fraud

  1. #31
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    They even know who won King Philip's War.
    They don't know that in the USA a person has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 7th, 2018),Grosnick Marowbe (October 7th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018),ok doser (October 7th, 2018)

  3. #32
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,816
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,839 Times in 4,264 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    They even know who won King Philip's War.
    Disease, mostly

    I've often wondered why amerindians were so susceptible to European diseases

    And why the Indians weren't carrying diseases that Europeans were susceptible to

  4. #33
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,801
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 669 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    370913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    They don't know that in the USA a person has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
    Sure they do, in criminal cases. Kavanaugh's was not a criminal case.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jonahdog For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (October 7th, 2018),Town Heretic (October 7th, 2018)

  6. #34
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,801
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 669 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    370913
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    Disease, mostly

    I've often wondered why amerindians were so susceptible to European diseases

    And why the Indians weren't carrying diseases that Europeans were susceptible to
    That is a really interesting question. Perhaps European diseases were able to affect more people because they were able to move through a larger population. Any Native American diseases would have only the population of explorers to move through and might therefore be limited. Fewer people to get infected.

  7. #35
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,256
    Thanks
    3,595
    Thanked 7,780 Times in 4,504 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The more meaningful education of which you speak makes them stupid
    No, it never does. Now if they waste the opportunity (in which case they haven't really had that meaningful education) they'll come out largely unchanged, but that's on them.

    because almost all of their teachers are stupid.
    Reminds me of the time I was listening to this anti-theist go on and on about religion. Toward the end he said something like that about the faithful. So I walked up to him, extended my hand, and as he was shaking it congratulated him and asked him what church he attended.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. #36
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,187
    Thanks
    14,327
    Thanked 36,686 Times in 18,299 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147799
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Sure they do, in criminal cases. Kavanaugh's was not a criminal case.
    He was accused of a crime, and answered under penalty of perjury. That particular talking point does not hold water.
    Last edited by glorydaz; October 8th, 2018 at 09:35 PM.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 7th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018),ok doser (October 7th, 2018)

  10. #37
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,801
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 669 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    370913
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    He was accused of a crime, and answered under penalty of perjury. That particular talking point does not hole water.
    Does not change the fact that it was not a criminal proceeding. In a civil proceeding you testify under penalty of perjury as well but the burden of proof is different.
    This was clearly a political proceeding, even different from a civil one. The decision was based on politics. You only need to compare Gramham's sputtering finger waving comments to his earlier positions on trump. He has sold his soul, I thought he had some integrity, quelle surprise.

  11. #38
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,801
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 669 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    370913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The more meaningful education of which you speak makes them stupid because almost all of their teachers are stupid.
    Well that is an interesting comment. Perhaps you should just step to the front of the class room, Jerry. Impart all your knowledge to those young inquiring minds.

  12. #39
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,187
    Thanks
    14,327
    Thanked 36,686 Times in 18,299 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147799
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Does not change the fact that it was not a criminal proceeding. In a civil proceeding you testify under penalty of perjury as well but the burden of proof is different.
    This was clearly a political proceeding, even different from a civil one. The decision was based on politics. You only need to compare Gramham's sputtering finger waving comments to his earlier positions on trump. He has sold his soul, I thought he had some integrity, quelle surprise.
    Ah, searching for a hole are you? It was not a "political proceeding" ie a confirmation hearing. It was a show trial...a mock trial. Reminds me a bit of the mock hearing Jesus received.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018)

  14. #40
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Well that is an interesting comment. Perhaps you should just step to the front of the class room, Jerry. Impart all your knowledge to those young inquiring minds.
    I'll be glad to stand in front of inquiring minds and tell them that they should beware of the hate spewed out by Georgetown University Associate Professor Christine Fair when she said that white GOP senators "deserved miserable deaths while feminists laugh."

    Can you imagine? She is from the group who champions political correctness!

    Inclusion EXCEPT for old white men. Kill em all!

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 8th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018)

  16. #41
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,256
    Thanks
    3,595
    Thanked 7,780 Times in 4,504 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    He was accused of a crime, and answered under penalty of perjury. That particular talking point does not hole water.
    You're wrong and it absolutely does. When you sign your name to a legally binding document you open yourself to criminal charges if you're signing in an attempt to defraud. It doesn't make the signing part of a criminal proceeding.

    The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. #42
    Resident Rocket Surgeon rocketman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,874
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 1,806 Times in 1,239 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147628
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.
    Well thankfully you don't get to decide where presumption exists and does not exist, though you are free to muse as others at how you "think" it should be (in your opinion of course). It actually does apply and all the kicking and screaming from liberal lawyers like yourself does not change 200+ years of precedent of due process. Accusing someone of a crime under oath in any official hearing puts the onus on the accuser to substantiate their claim and that just did not happen. I am aware that there are sects of lawyers such as yourself that are floating this bogus notion including certain law institutions which intend to undermine due process, seems to be all the rage to turn the law on it's head these days, and violate the civil liberties of those you deem unworthy of them but, the precedent stands in spite of these disturbing notions to upend due process.
    The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...pictureid=3504


    Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rocketman For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 8th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018),ok doser (October 8th, 2018)

  19. #43
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,187
    Thanks
    14,327
    Thanked 36,686 Times in 18,299 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147799
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You're wrong and it absolutely does. When you sign your name to a legally binding document you open yourself to criminal charges if you're signing in an attempt to defraud. It doesn't make the signing part of a criminal proceeding.

    The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.
    Nonsense. The presumption of innocence predates all your lawyerly scams. It's a basic human right, and that you don't see that tells me something about you.

    So, when your neighbor comes storming over and claims your son broke his window while he was at work, do you presume he's guilty and expect him to prove his innocence? Do you bother to ask, what proof your neighbor has that it was your son and not some other kid?

    Fess up, Mr. Lawyer. There is no court of law to give him his rights.

    Or, do you not give him even his basic human right to presumption of innocence?

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    lifeisgood (October 9th, 2018),ok doser (October 9th, 2018)

  21. #44
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,801
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 669 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    370913
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Nonsense. The presumption of innocence predates all your lawyerly scams. It's a basic human right, and that you don't see that tells me something about you.

    So, when your neighbor comes storming over and claims your son broke his window while he was at work, do you presume he's guilty and expect him to prove his innocence? Do you bother to ask, what proof your neighbor has that it was your son and not some other kid?

    Fess up, Mr. Lawyer. There is no court of law to give him his rights.

    Or, do you not give him even his basic human right to presumption of innocence?
    Not worth the effort

  22. #45
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,256
    Thanks
    3,595
    Thanked 7,780 Times in 4,504 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
    Well thankfully you don't get to decide where presumption exists and does not exist, though you are free to muse as others at how you "think" it should be (in your opinion of course).
    Rather, I'm a lawyer telling you something that is objectively true. It isn't an op-ed and I'm not making the decision. I'm explaining why that decision was already made. Why it was a good one.

    Accusing someone of a crime under oath in any official hearing puts the onus on the accuser to substantiate their claim and that just did not happen.
    I get "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" as a principle of argument and of course if you're saying another person did X you'll have to make the case to the third party that what you're saying is true, but if the presumption actually lay with Kavanaugh he wouldn't have had to and shouldn't have been required to speak at all. Because if and when you're presumed innocent (which, again, is a criminal presumption that isn't applicable here) you may remain silent and put the onus on the charging party entirely (which is always the state, not a private individual).

    The truth is that we had two people making sworn statements about a thing and that's all we had. Of course the person laying the charge is going to have to convince the people deciding on the competing narratives that hers is the more believable one. That's not the same as overcoming a presumption of innocence, a thing only presumed to be in play by mistaken laymen and those who seek for one reason or another to mislead them.

    Any number of legal actions that are not criminal in nature carry with them the possibility/potential of a related criminal charge being laid at some point even while the event isn't that animal at all in the signing. I noted that in an illustration for glory.

    For the rest...your presumption isn't one of innocence. It's beneath you to write it and beneath me to worry after it. Believe I'm an elf it it suits what ails you to produce the need.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; October 9th, 2018 at 07:35 AM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us