IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Joe Arpaio , presidential pardons , racism charges , racism issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 29th August 2017, 12:36 PM   #201
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well that's the point; what makes him a racist is the stuff that distinguishes him from non-racists, obviously.
He must not be a racist, he was only appealing to racist voters who demanded he violate the civil rights of the lesser races.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 01:10 PM   #202
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Arpaio got a pardon after deleting thousands of emails.
Arpaio’s office had deleted thousands of requested emails (yes!), Snow issued only mild sanctions in response. (6/15)
I seem to recall this being a huge offense during the campaign.
During one of Arpaio's campaigns or Trump's presidential campaign? Because the Orange Führer has also destroyed countless documents that were requested in his (civil) litigations.

Whenever I hear that a party destroyed relevant documents, personally I conclude that the point that the other party wanted to prove with those documents is apparently true. IMHO, that would also be the correct sanction in litigation.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 01:32 PM   #203
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
During one of Arpaio's campaigns or Trump's presidential campaign? Because the Orange Führer has also destroyed countless documents that were requested in his (civil) litigations.

Whenever I hear that a party destroyed relevant documents, personally I conclude that the point that the other party wanted to prove with those documents is apparently true. IMHO, that would also be the correct sanction in litigation.
During Arpaio's trial. He was ordered to preserve emails and deleted them in response. They were able to recover many after this. They mostly contained a cornucopia of racist memes.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 01:42 PM   #204
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I think #3 is important to recognize if anyone talks about Arpaio "doing his job" - all reasonable metrics of his job performance were not just bad but atrocious. Response time, cases cleared, crime rate, etc. were all terrible when compared to similar areas. So even if we completely ignored the thing he was pardoned for, in no way was Arpaio doing his job.

Except in the most basic sense that we paid him while he did all that stuff. Of course by that logic if I came into work, deleted all our files, and then took a dump on my boss' desk that would be me doing my job.
Which is ironic, because allegedly, reactionaries object to an overreaching government bureaucrat wasting taxpayer dollars on personal empire building. But hey, if he's beating up the brownies, well, that's not waste then I guess.



Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Also, for anyone who isn't fully versed in Sheriff Joe's career please know that the things you've been seeing are just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even begin to scratch the surface. I could tell you all about the time they arrested my brother for clapping (that was a big payout for wrongful arrest, the judge was PISSED) or the Space Tourism scam that Arpaio ran, or the time when he falsely accused his political opponent of murdering his (the opponent's) mom right before the election, or a million other things.
This is the silver lining. There's potential for other cases to be brought forward. This crook was not very famous outside his state, so the national exposure means more funds for new plaintiffs.



Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Yeah, in theory. I mean honestly he should have been in jail a long time ago. But that's the thing, it hasn't happened. This was like finally getting Capone on tax evasion. And even if we did manage to get him for one of his many, many, many other crimes - why wouldn't Trump just pardon him again?
Ideally, any future conviction might be state criminal code, which the president can't pardon. He only has the power to pardon federal convictions.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 01:52 PM   #205
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
<snip>

Obviously this is anecdotal, but in my experience non-racists are way more likely to be aware of all the subtle ingrained types of racism in society and be willing to be introspective about it. That means that in the cases where I've personally seen what I would call a non-racist person be accused of racism they say something like "Sorry! Um... what part was racist, though? I certainly didn't intend any of it to be." and there's a conversation and things get sorted out. Meanwhile, racists often go right to being pissed off because how dare you accuse them of being racist, I bet *you're* the racist and I'm being oppressed by... etc. Again, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal.
First off, if "racist" encompasses everything from not being up to speed on the latest changes to approved vernacular all the way to KKK Grand Dragon, the word starts to lose its punch.

My anecdotal observation is nearly every time I or another accused person ask for clarification/unpacking, that request itself is portrayed as hostile/micro-aggression/gaslighting/invalidating.

Believe it or not, some people have no interest in conflict resolution or social justice, they are just amused by emotionally blackmailing people.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 01:29 AM   #206
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,701
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
First off, if "racist" encompasses everything from not being up to speed on the latest changes to approved vernacular all the way to KKK Grand Dragon, the word starts to lose its punch.

My anecdotal observation is nearly every time I or another accused person ask for clarification/unpacking, that request itself is portrayed as hostile/micro-aggression/gaslighting/invalidating.

Believe it or not, some people have no interest in conflict resolution or social justice, they are just amused by emotionally blackmailing people.
While I think you're right, it gets further complicated in that some people who ask for clarification/unpacking are themselves being disingenuous.

Anecdotally I've found myself on the the other end, trying to patiently explain why for instance asking an Asian person "No where are you really from?" may not be cool and getting JAQing off in bad faith.

In fact, more recently on a lot of issues where there tends to be a liberal/conservative divide I've found myself in a position where I see someone in disagreement with who is asking questions and seems open to discussion, but it quickly gets somewhere like this-

"So we both agree that if A is true then B is true, right?'
"Yes."
"And we both agree that A is true right?"
"Yes."
"So then B is true"
"What? No, of course not."

One part of dealing with racism, is that it's kind of unfair that people of color often get tasked with the huge emotional and real labor of explaining racism, often to people who aren't communicating in good faith. It can be exhausting and irritating, so it isn't too surprising that some people don't want to assume good faith in people who don't do their own work in learning about racism and expect people affected by it to fight them into it.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 07:46 PM   #207
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
Joe Arpaio saga isn't over: Judge to decide if his conviction stands

I'm guessing the judge will ultimately capitulate, but she's going to get her pound of flesh first.

Quote:
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 03:21 PM   #208
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,668
Not sure why you think she will capitulate. There is case law that seems to indicate accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 05:16 PM   #209
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Not sure why you think she will capitulate. There is case law that seems to indicate accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
Seems to indicate?

What case?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 31st August 2017 at 05:17 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 05:37 PM   #210
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems to indicate?

What case?
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Would an innocent person be expected to remain in prison on principle instead of accepting a pardon? I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard of integrity.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 07:06 PM   #211
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Would an innocent person be expected to remain in prison on principle instead of accepting a pardon? I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard of integrity.

Parole boards expect it all the time.

Maybe more like every time.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 09:37 PM   #212
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Parole boards expect it all the time.

Maybe more like every time.
What are you talking about?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 03:01 AM   #213
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Parole boards expect it all the time.

Maybe more like every time.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What are you talking about?
It's a reference to the fact that someone who maintains their innocence in front of a parole board may find it difficult or impossible to get parole because they can't be rehabilitated for a crime they won't admit committing.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 03:11 AM   #214
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Would an innocent person be expected to remain in prison on principle instead of accepting a pardon? I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard of integrity.

Doesn't it happen all the time for prisoners who would be eligible for parole but maintain their innocence so they're not released on license?

EDIT: Or what others have said above.

There's a whole Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innoce...er%27s_dilemma
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 1st September 2017 at 03:12 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 03:29 AM   #215
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Doesn't it happen all the time for prisoners who would be eligible for parole but maintain their innocence so they're not released on license?

EDIT: Or what others have said above.

There's a whole Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innoce...er%27s_dilemma
Except that a pardon isn't the same as parole.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 03:44 AM   #216
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,298
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Not sure why you think she will capitulate. There is case law that seems to indicate accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
There appears to be as much case law saying that accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt.
An articel by a conlaw professor:
Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?
Quote:
Some people have asked: Does accepting a presidential or gubernatorial pardon imply an admission of guilt? The answer turns out to be complicated.

...

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt.
Most people I've spoken with think it is an admission of guilt via the there's no smoke without fire fallacy.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 07:09 AM   #217
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Except that a pardon isn't the same as parole.

It isn't all that different.

Both involve being released from custody after having been convicted and before having completed whatever sentence was passed.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 07:37 AM   #218
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
It isn't all that different.

Both involve being released from custody after having been convicted and before having completed whatever sentence was passed.
as we have seen re: Arapio, that is not true.

See also Nixon, R.M.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 08:41 AM   #219
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 39,057
I'm sure that legally accepting a pardon isn't an admission of guilt. Just like taking the fifth. In the minds of the public, however, both pretty much are.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 09:03 AM   #220
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm sure that legally accepting a pardon isn't an admission of guilt. Just like taking the fifth. In the minds of the public, however, both pretty much are.
Was Arpaio actually found guilty in a court of law?

If so, then he IS guilty, regardless of his protestations. Guilty is defined by law. If a judge/jury finds you guilty, you are guilty in the eyes of the law, by definition, regardless of whether you think you are or not.

So accepting a pardon would merely be an admission that you were found guilty in a court of law. Which, if it happened, is undeniable.

Now, if the case is on-going and he has not been found guilty yet, then the pardon could just be for crimes he may or may not have committed. Basically like Ford's pardon of Nixon. He never said Nixon did it, just that, if he did, he's pardoned.
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 09:13 AM   #221
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm sure that legally accepting a pardon isn't an admission of guilt. Just like taking the fifth. In the minds of the public, however, both pretty much are.
I'm equally sure that you're wrong. I've got nine guys in black robes (no, not a satanist reunion) who agree with me. There are two major cases involving pardons that made the Supreme Court. The first was under Jackson's administration, the second Woodrow Wilson's.

Both opinions clearly state that accepting a pardon has with it an implication of guilt.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 11:31 AM   #222
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I'm equally sure that you're wrong. I've got nine guys in black robes (no, not a satanist reunion) who agree with me. There are two major cases involving pardons that made the Supreme Court. The first was under Jackson's administration, the second Woodrow Wilson's.

Both opinions clearly state that accepting a pardon has with it an implication of guilt.
Without reading the opinions, it seems to me that the only way this works is if the pardon is accepted in advance of prosecution during which one would presumably try to prove their innocence. Otherwise, it's just sensible and practical to accept a pardon instead of suffering the consequences of conviction, regardless of guilt.

ETA: Practically, it would only be at issue in a court if one was prosecuted on a different level from that to which the pardon applies (e.g., being prosecuted on a federal civil rights charge for a crime which a governor had previously pardoned, or perhaps in the case of a civil lawsuit).

Last edited by Babbylonian; 1st September 2017 at 11:34 AM.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 11:36 AM   #223
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 39,057
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Was Arpaio actually found guilty in a court of law?
Yes, of contempt of court by a federal judge.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 11:43 AM   #224
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems to indicate?

What case?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sion-of-guilt/

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people’s moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 11:43 AM   #225
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
The underlying implication is that one cannot plead the 5th on issues pertaining to that matter. Having been pardoned, one's statements are not legally incriminating (no possible prosecution would result from them).

Now, I haven't read Trump's pardon. What did he pardon Arpaio for? The contempt alone? Well, then he'd still be free to invoke the 5th about all his grievous misdeeds as Sheriff. If he was broadly pardoned, then we need to get him on a witness stand to at least have to utter the words in front of people.

Perhaps the most minimal and yet powerful bit of justice that can ever be extracted: admission and acknowledgment into the public record of what the truth was.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2017, 02:06 PM   #226
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yeah, I mean, the next thing you know you have old folks getting together and mugging people. Or gumming people.

There are essentially three reasons why society puts people in prison:

1. To protect society against those likely to commit more crimes if they are not jailed.

2. To rehabilitate prisoners so they can become functioning members of society.

3. To punish people for their transgressions. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Of the three, I favor 1&2 but recognize that 3 is important in severe enough cases. Now think about Sheriff Joe. Likely to re-offend? No, he got voted out and at 85 I don't see him running again. Does he need to be rehabilitated? Not an issue. So it boils down to punishment. Remember, the "crime" that Arpaio was convicted of carried a 6-month sentence. In our society, that is not indicative of a severe crime.

So forget the comparison to 85-year-old Nazis. Looking at the thread, a lot of people want to sentence Arpaio over crimes for which he has never been tried. Guess what? Unless Trump issued a blanket pardon, you can still go after him for those things.
Hopefully they will and make his last years as close to what he did to those he tortured and whose rights he rode roughshod over as legally possible.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 05:21 AM   #227
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Oops, left out murdered as there were a number of those also on his watch!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 12:11 PM   #228
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 25,737
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Oops, left out murdered as there were a number of those also on his watch!!!
Not just on his watch, but all over his wallet and keys as well.
__________________
Current cheese: 2023 World Champion Cheese Nidelven Blå by Gangstad Gårdsysteri
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.