The Office of the President deserves RESPECT!!! Except, y'know, not NOW that Obama is in....
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 13:24
VIEWED: 13349
PAGE 21 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
a 4. What did you get?
http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/
LOL, I got a 4 as well!!
(And here I thought I was quite the arse...)
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I conjure no "Conman" will share the results with us
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You limey slacker, ya need to step up your game!
http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/
-F
. The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, and aside from Mark Fuhrman using the N-word so much, he'd have been a great witness against O.J., huh?
OJ was guilty, so...yeah.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And thank you SO much, Chris, for removing my ability to pretend I missed the question, while yer at it, why not gimme a nice papercut and pour lemon juice on it, eh ?
7, if it's just my people were talkin about.
9, for the general public, due to creep factor.
For some reason just because of the issues I deal with, those who know that but are not part of my cadre tend to find my presence alone creepifyin.
It's idiotic, but people are people, meh.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, and aside from Mark Fuhrman using the N-word so much, he'd have been a great witness against O.J., huh?
OJ was guilty, so...yeah.
H
OJ was found guilty in the criminal murder trial in which Fuhrman testilied? I had no idea... I could've sworn his testimony did in the prosecution's case because of his overt racism.
I guess the lesson there is to never put your whole case on the testimony of an out and out racist.
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
OJ was found guilty in the criminal murder trial in which Fuhrman testilied?
Yes, he was. He was found guilty by everyone but the Jury.
I note for the record that the failure of the case fell on three issues. First, the Judge let the case get out of control (over a year?). Second, the Prosecutor made huge tactical blunders (the glove...I mean they let him try on the glove). Third, the timeline could not be conclusively established. There was simply no way for OJ to get from his house to her house to his house to the airport and leave nothing to be found except a glove and some particle-sized blood drops that was HIS blood (in other words they could show motive and how it was all done...that just never could nail down how he did it.)
But was he guilty? Yeah.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Prove it.
Originally posted by Hero:
But was he guilty? Yeah.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So when it comes to OJ, you're willing to accept a much lower level of "proof" than you are for, say... the President?
I mean, "everyone knows" he's guilty of war crimes. He's been found guilty by everyone but his Sixteen Percenters. Why is that not good enough for you?
I'm not saying OJ did or didn't do it; I'm just making the point that (a) his case fell apart on the back of a "racist" who cost the prosecution their credibility (much like AuRacist's credibility is completely blown to hell by his "facts" that he constantly gets 100% wrong) and (b) "everyone" can KNOW he did it, but the burden of proof is still on the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt - just like it is with Bush's crimes.
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, but color me stunned: There's an OJ defender left on the planet?
My mom was a real OJ fan, she thought he was the bees knees. It took her a decade to cave.
OJ is way up there on the most guilty of all time list, with Hillary Clinton. Just read the case files, check out the evidence that never made it into court. Lionel Tate is another incredibly guilty perp.
But the OJ trial wasn't about OJ, it was about the LAPD, who were also incredibly guilty of planting evidence at the scene of the crime in order to convict their incredibly guilty suspect. A guilty verdict would have been rewarding crooked cops, and would encourage that behavior.
Also, small issue of Alan Dershowitz being the evil genius that set up the defense, and Marcia Clark being the patsy for it. Remember Alan Dershowitz was the first legal advisor to the president to suggest that torture as national policy would be "a good idea" and sent Bush a detailed list of legal tricks that could be used to get around laws against torture. Having Dershowitz as a lawyer is like having Kevin Lomax. Yeah, you're going to win. Don't mean you're innocent.
BTW, OJ was almost immediately found guilty in a civil court case. Now if I recall he's spending life in prison, and it's ain't for stealing a football trophy.
Check out Lionel Tate, who is currently serving 40 years for unlawful possession of a firearm. Anyone else would walk on this as their first adult offense, Lionel Tate gets special treatment, he would fry for a parking ticket.
Just like people here have mentioned they remember sick ruthless bastards, so does the law. It just doesn't admit to it.
Oh, one more thing: The LAPD was full of racist bastards, sure, and yes, they are far from the good guys, but you better believe that it wasn't OJ Simpson's being black that made them so out to get him that they f^&ked up the trial, it was his long list of prior abuse and assault charges.
(No, I'm not gonna get into an Oj argument, I was completely unaware that there would be anyone on the other side. Just shooting a skeet, now I'm done.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: I'm no OJ defender; I was simply asking our resident "lawyer" a few germane questions about a court case. Seems he's ever on the side of the law and what can and can't be proved in court, EXCEPT when it doesn't go his way.
I was asking if OJ was convicted of murder, or if a racist cop so tainted the case that everything else was suspect as well as his testimony.
I do find it somewhat funny to compare what "everybody knows" to what happens in court. You'd think it would be easy to convict someone of something everybody knows they did. Seems it's not quite that easy...
As for OJ's current plight, if I remember correctly he was sentenced to around 12 years for his latest escapades - hardly a life sentence.
Among the things "everybody knows":
Bill Ayers was a terrorist. The operative word being "was". Oddly, he was never convicted, either - again because the prosecution overshot and fucked its case all to hell in their zeal to nail him.
Bill Clinton is a psychopath. Never proven, widely accepted.
OJ did it.
Nixon was a crook. Never convicted, "pre-pardoned" for any crimes he "may have committed", yet still a crook.
George W. Bush, liar, torturer, probable war criminal.
Curious, eh? All guilty as hell, or so it seems. Everybody knows it, yet no one seems able to get a conviction against any of them.
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME