[AndrewC]

In any case, do you remember our friend Andrew riding to rescue of the poor soul who suffered the indignity of my question whether LEO's should determine one's constitutional rights in advance? He was howling about it for hours.

You mischaracterize the discussion. I entered the fray because of your dismissive "I stopped reading after presume" comment. I then pointed out that you had no problem with presumption in an example.

In the course of the argument, I mentioned your ludicrous statement about LEO's in post 381. In Post 385 you tried to push the argument of constitutionality off on me as my argument. I refused to let you do so in post 387. So your delusional assertion of my howling for hours about the Constitution not applying to illegal aliens is either a lie or a delusion promoted by you. Take your pick or retract your mistaken statement.

Here is post 381

You simply feel that it has. As far as my "dismissive" response? You think it "deserves criticism?" Take a look at the comment to which I was responding. ---- 1rudeboy

Not just feeling that way, I have given evidence of your acceptance of presumption. You presumed that someone used Compean's testimony to determine that Compean was angry among other things. You have yet to show that testimony.
The comment to which you responded was also responding to an "uninspired" comment by you about LEOs determining in advance a person's rights.

My post 387

Well, I'm not an idiot, because I don't buy your idiotic hypotheticals. The burden of proving your statement as true is upon you.

[1rudeboy]

Now I remember, that person had the temerity to "presume" that I was in favor of the United States being "invaded." And you let it roll right off your back . . . in any case, perhaps you can direct calcowgirl to a comment on this thread that suggests illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights? You appear to have it wired.

If you could post it in red that would be really cool.