Search results

And be OUTRAGED! It's WORSE THAN STALIN!

But wouldn't the exaggerations and undercounts kinda. . . cancel each other out? That's OK. As long as you get to be OUTRAGED about what a government you can't vote for does in a country you don't live in.

Must be the hair.

Perhaps the best answer is the so-called Scottish Verdict: "Guilt Not Proven." Look at it this way. In a criminal case, it's "Are you absolutely sure he did it?" If yes, guilty. In a civil case it's more like "Think he did it? Yeah, probably." And he's liable.

Wrong. A prophylactic involves rolling it onto your dick before you fuck her. Or him. Or it. I don't judge.

Well, I'm glad somebody put you out!

Not me. I'm immortal! Well, so far anyhow.

So, which is it? Exaggerating or undercounting? You've accused the governments of both.

For me, Dad was long gone before I was born, so he didn't get a say.

I've never been spiritually oppressed. Maybe my spirit is stronger than yours.

At American law, and I believe it's the same for Canada, there are three standards of evidence. The classic "beyond a reasonable doubt" of guilt in criminal cases, the "preponderance of the evidence" rule in civil cases, and sometimes an enhanced preponderance standard called "clear and...

I'm not sure "easy" covers it. It's the same in Canaduh, by the way.

Grandmother had an old fashioned wooden spoon. We didn't obey orders. If we were smart and wanted to remain pain-free, we anticipated orders.

Nope. For example, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case and was found liable in the civil case. Different standards of proof.

Wow, your folks were Nazis! For us it was "Be home for winter."

Yep. Got my ruptured duck to prove it.

Liable, not guilty. It's a civil case.

That's what I said.

Well, I suppose talking to yourself can be liberating.