The Office of the President deserves RESPECT!!! Except, y'know, not NOW that Obama is in.... by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Office of the President deserves RESPECT!!! Except, y'know, not NOW that Obama is in....

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 03:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8338
PAGE 5 of 5

Saturday, February 7, 2009 7:15 AM

CHRISISALL

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 7:33 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You limey slacker, ya need to step up your game!
http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/
-F

I conjure no "Conman" will share the results with us

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2009 3:03 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2009 10:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 8:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 11:06 AM

HERO

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 11:10 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

But was he guilty? Yeah.

Prove it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 12:11 PM

KWICKO

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 2:07 PM

DREAMTROVE

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 4:02 PM

KWICKO

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 4:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Sure, OJ's a crook, and guilty.

But OJ never swore to uphold the law, and the folks crapping all over it in their usual, common, everyday MO, they did.

Don't bullshit me, the only difference between the OJ case and any other courtroom case in america is that for once they caught and called out the perjuring, testilying, evidence planting/manufacturing sumbitches of the blue suited mafia.

I am still firmly of the opinion that not only should police officers be held to every single nitpick of every single law we suffer under, specifically including those relating to weapons use and possession, but that any violation thereof should result in an immediate sentence of TRIPLE what a civvie would get, and additional charges for violation of the sworn oath to uphold and obey the law.

It's always sorely pissed me off that when the folks we hire to enforce the law crap all over it, they get off so much easier than those who never took that oath ?

It's bullshit, and factually they're a fuckin mafia, is what it is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 5:36 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mike

Quote:
I was simply asking our resident "lawyer"

Oh, Hero's okay. He might need to bone up on his law :)

Quote:

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...

Because of the concept of "permissible evidence." What we got to see was a lot more damning than what the jury got to see. Of course, to be selected for this case, you have to have never heard of OJ Simpson, which probably puts you in the oblivious to Earth category, along with people who think the moon is never visible during the day.

Quote:

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.

You could be right, I read it was going to be 25-30, but I didn't google it, or catch the follow up story. Avg life expectancy in prison is about 10, but he's not an average guy, even at his age, he can take care of himself.

Quote:
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.

Or, the key word being terrorist. I don't have too much of an issue with this, I think he has no real connection with Obama, and I don't have that much of an issue with terrorists, as long as their targets follow some sort of logic. If someone has malicious intent, and someone fights them, even if the law is on one side: Take the indians who are attacking loggers in the amazon. They've moved from blowdarts to heavy weaponry, and now lawyers. I'd say, sure, bombing the loggers is terrorist, and completely contrary to brazilian law, but yes, I have no problem with these guys. Ayers, I don't have a serious issue with him.

Now, you take something like the janjaweed, jundallah, RUF, these guys, f&*k 'em. deal out as much justice as you have bullets. That's a fair trial ;)

IOW, When your targets are schools and hospitals, you're just inhuman.

Quote:
Bill Clinton is a psychopath. Never proven, widely accepted.

You should read larry craig's case on this. I think it's pretty damn near proof. That plus his sabotage of the patriot act renewal was enough to make both parties want to destroy him. Strangely, he's still a senator, largely because arlen spector vouched for him.

Quote:
OJ did it.

ya, ok. had me worried there.

Quote:
Nixon was a crook. Never convicted, "pre-pardoned" for any crimes he "may have committed", yet still a crook.

sure. he had redeeming qualities. One thing that bothered me was that what he was really in trouble for was for breaking international law by crossing into cambodia to try to take out pol pot. He was absolutely morally right in doing so, however illegal it was. pol pot, without us to deal with, would later kill 1.5-3.0 million people.

Quote:
George W. Bush, liar, torturer, probable war criminal.

No argument here

Quote:
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.

Legal system doesn't work. What else is new?

Here's one for you: The concept of the jury of 12 men was originally 12 men for every 144 in the town where the crime took place. The peasants wanted a public trial, and the king (england, don't remember which, but I could look it up) wanted the way things had always been: what he said went. So, he advisors proposed this compromise, telling the kind that surely 1 man in 12 could be found to support the king's position, whatever it might be, even the worst of cases.

So, the system was corrupt by design. Shortening that to just a simple 12 men made it absurd. A friend of mine was in a jury a couple years back, in just a minute of rant, she destroyed the american judicial system for me. She said, it was like a high school clique, where the popular alpha male and alpha female came in and peer pressure the less popular kids into their position until she was the last hold out. Finally, they got to her. They told her that they could keep her here forever, and she wouldn't see her brain damaged son who was home alone, as he would be taken away, while she was here, fighting a battle that she was doomed to lose, when at last they would eventually have her removed as a juror. Meanwhile, everyone else got impatient with her. It took her 3 days, she caved, though she said she the case was far from conclusive.

I know people well enough to envision the HS popularity scene, and see it materialize in that situation. That, the selective evidence, and the power of money and the talent of lawyers, their secondary motives, the innate corruption of the system, it's all to clear. As I said, statistically, over a million in assets, <20% chance of being found guilty. <20k in assets, 98% chance of being found guilty.

Quote:
OJ never swore to uphold the law

Like an oath means anything, how about love honor and cherish till he slices her into ribbons.

Quote:
I am still firmly of the opinion that not only should police officers be held to every single nitpick of every single law we suffer under, specifically including those relating to weapons use and possession, but that any violation thereof should result in an immediate sentence of TRIPLE what a civvie would get, and additional charges for violation of the sworn oath to uphold and obey the law.

I wouldn't go that far, I would agree: No legal protection for the law. They should be on the same level as everyone else. Obstruction of justices, conspiracy, etc. They were guilty, and should have been tried for it, directly after convincting OJ. Fuhrman should have then been tried for multiple accounts of homocide, which he confesses to in the case. He talks about taking blacks into the back room and torturing them to death WTF? Why doesn't someone just arrest this psycho? Here's an added bonus: Since he'd end up with a life sentence if he didn't do those things during the process of an official police interrogation and they weren't filed as "accidents" or "self defense," then those would be murder convictions, he'd go off to maximum security, and I have a great cell mate picked out for him..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2009 7:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I disagree with that last sentence for two reasons.

One, considering how many innocent folk are in jail, and how much brutality goes on there, I will NEVER support even the concept no matter what kind of monster someone is.

Two, prison isn't rehabilitative, it can't be without a complete overhaul of the system, and as such, given that it's punitive in nature by removing them from society - they should have no human contact whatsoever outside of the minimum required to conduct business, or keep them from mental deterioration, so that when they do finish their term and get out, they will VALUE the company of others.

Also, as an aside - I take a formally sworn Oath very damned seriously, call me a throwback if you like, but the seriousness with which we take such things give it power and credibility.

But there's more to that then I will explain here.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:24 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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 was always on OJ's side. I wanted them to have to prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I followed the case very closely and I tried it myself in moot court on two seperate occaisons, both as Defense counsel.

My legal opinion is that the testimony of Mark Fuhrman was a minor issue. The timeline and lack of evidence was the biggest hurdle and the Judge's failure to control the trial was the biggest failure.

He still did it...he was guilty.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE