Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Sounds about right. Here's what the left is about: 1) Propping up all other religions outside of Christianity. 2) Sticking up for the enemies of our country: Arab middle easterners (namely the Palestinians), Communist China, and socialist Europe 3) Supporting Labor's destructive crusade against American free enterprise. 4) Excessive taxation and wasteful government spending 5) elimination of traditional family structures via support for abortion and queer marriage. 6) Enslavement of minorities to the leftist political machine through overarching social "welfare" programs I could go on and on, but really, what's the point? 354176[/snapback] There is no point when you just throw out Republican talking points and lines that they use to discredit the left. Here's some that the Democrats use to discredit the Republicans: 1) Party of only the White Christians 2) Party that likes to restrict civil liberties and rights of Americans 3) Supports companies that move overseas 4) Excessive taxcuts and no longer fiscal spenders 5) Excessive agregious law interpretations to oppress people sexually. 6) War-lovers that fight unnecessary wars because they want to. Anyone with half a brain would realize neither of these 2 sides are "fair and balanced" looks at either party. JSP, do you have more then half a brain? Due process is pretty much a joke when you have as much money to manipulate the media machine as Jackson and OJ Simpson do. Jackson fits the profile pretty much to a "T". Even if he's found not guilty, it doesn't mean he's not a child molester - it just means the system failed yet again. 354238[/snapback] I didn't really watch either trial or follow the coverage (mainly because I dislike the fact that they get so much media attention just because they're known whereas the cases which are truely important don't), but a strong majority of Americans think that they're both guilty (and lots of American's opinions are from television) - so if they really manipulated the media machine wouldn't they have done it in their favor and made the majority of people think they are innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I didn't really watch either trial or follow the coverage (mainly because I dislike the fact that they get so much media attention just because they're known whereas the cases which are truely important don't), but a strong majority of Americans think that they're both guilty (and lots of American's opinions are from television) - so if they really manipulated the media machine wouldn't they have done it in their favor and made the majority of people think they are innocent? 354803[/snapback] Yes and no. The portrayal of the accusers has been as money grubbers since the charges were filed and they subpoened what 300+ witnesses, many of them Hollywood elite. True? I don't know because I haven't wasted 3 minutes of my life on what is going on but on occasion catch an update while driving around. They don't need to be innocent - they need to be the underdog to 12 people and have his team be ever so slightly more competent than the prosecution. That's all it takes. Ask OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yes and no. The portrayal of the accusers has been as money grubbers since the charges were filed and they subpoened what 300+ witnesses, many of them Hollywood elite. True? I don't know because I haven't wasted 3 minutes of my life on what is going on but on occasion catch an update while driving around. They don't need to be innocent - they need to be the underdog to 12 people and have his team be ever so slightly more competent than the prosecution. That's all it takes. Ask OJ. 354862[/snapback] Thats more of a manipulation of a jury then the media I'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Not a lot of details in the story. Sure the Dems aren't just trying to keep teenagers convicted of statutory rape of their teenage girlfriends off the list? Just trying to be fair - I don't know the answer. I can't imagine any other acceptable exceptions off the top of my head. If it's an attempt to protect civil liberties of convicted child molesters, that's one thing, but I wouldn't want the hypothetical teen thrown into the same boat, either. 354742[/snapback] That's the "few exceptions" I was talking about. An 18 year old guy with a 16 year old girlfriend is called High School. But, just a guess...how many normal relationships of that nature get prosecuted as statuatory rape? Hell, half of us would be in prison were that true. If the "due process" system is supposed to be so infallible and wonderful, as many here have implied in other venues (Cough...Campy... ) There should be enough common sense in it to separate the wheat from the chaff. If one wants to, they can write or change laws to accomodate that. I don't like the idea of predators getting ANY protection based upon the maybes and the hypothetical what might happen that dilutes our "criminal justice" system. Justice? Michael Jackson is going to walk away from his latest media event. If he's found guilty of having a hangnail, he'll beat it on appeal. I'm obviously not a lawyer, and it's an old argument...but sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one... ). There is a thing in war planning, defense planning, strategy (for lack of better terms), called acceptable risk. There is no perfect system, or solution. You can't cover every base all the time. One writes a plan knowing that if A, B or C happens - it happens. You try to mitigate against it, you adjust to it, you have thought about the areas where, if you are in charge, you are willing to accept the risk of things not going your way in the interest of achieving the objective. The objective is the goal. In war, it's defeating your adversary. Here, it's keeping fellow citizens, family members - maybe people we care about - from being violated and killed. "Oh, the lab botched the DNA split? Your defense was supposed to get three samples and only got two? Sorry about the rest of the evidence, go forth and do well!" In a purely uneducated just layman's view look at where our great system has travelled, legal-wise, it seems like the concept of acceptable risk has long since gone by the wayside. Any number of lawyers here will be welcome to set me straight. I'm sure some can and will. So what? Think I care? Maybe it's a moral question. Is it better to let 2% of possibly innocent people get convicted? Of anything? Or is it better to allow 10% of those everyone knows is guilty, go? Because of that damn 2%. Crap, if I go on any further... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yes and no. The portrayal of the accusers has been as money grubbers since the charges were filed and they subpoened what 300+ witnesses, many of them Hollywood elite. True? I don't know because I haven't wasted 3 minutes of my life on what is going on but on occasion catch an update while driving around. They don't need to be innocent - they need to be the underdog to 12 people and have his team be ever so slightly more competent than the prosecution. That's all it takes. Ask OJ. 354862[/snapback] That, in this case, is a bit of a misconception. Sure Jacko's team has been playing the "media sympathy" card for all they can...but the facts are (and I have been following the case - and discussing it with my sister the defense attorney - since the prosecution started !@#$ing it up so comically) that the prosecution chose to put on a shaky case with accusers they knew were impeachable, presented in front of a judge who blatantly allows them to commit prejudicial error (and himself probably commits reversible error) that will almost certainly cause an appellate court to declare a mistrial. Even if Jacko's team hadn't been playing the media game, this case is FUBAR'd well beyond anything they could have done. Jackson will ultimately get off not because he's rich, but because the court and prosecution have been ungodly stupid throughout this whole process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 That's the "few exceptions" I was talking about. An 18 year old guy with a 16 year old girlfriend is called High School. But, just a guess...how many normal relationships of that nature get prosecuted as statuatory rape? Hell, half of us would be in prison were that true. 354912[/snapback] I wouldn't be! Course, then again I couldn't get laid until I went to college and figgured this whole social thing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I wouldn't be! Course, then again I couldn't get laid until I went to college and figgured this whole social thing out. 354920[/snapback] ...................zits...huh?......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 ...................zits...huh?......... 354930[/snapback] Zits, Shyness, Weight.... Lets just say losing the zits, enrolling in the freshman -15 program (I dropped like 30 lbs when I came to college, it was quite the feat! Course it was the first time I had access to a gym), and drinking some alcohol for the first time took care of those problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Zits, Shyness, Weight.... Lets just say losing the zits, enrolling in the freshman -15 program (I dropped like 30 lbs when I came to college, it was quite the feat! Course it was the first time I had access to a gym), and drinking some alcohol for the first time took care of those problems. 354936[/snapback] Yup. Alchoholism does cut down on eating. Great way to lose weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yup. Alchoholism does cut down on eating. Great way to lose weight. 354940[/snapback] More like alcoholism leads to 3AM Taco Cabana runs. Best queso ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yup. Alchoholism does cut down on eating. Great way to lose weight. 354940[/snapback] It does if your hangovers are the "three days of projectile vomiting" type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 More like alcoholism leads to 3AM Taco Cabana runs. Best queso ever! 354942[/snapback] You just showed your young punk age...us old drunks look for bread and grease, like White Castles or Crystals. Gotta get rings AND fries with a Pepsi. Couple of Advil and a Xanax...good to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 You just showed your young punk age...us old drunks look for bread and grease, like White Castles or Crystals. Gotta get rings AND fries with a Pepsi. Couple of Advil and a Xanax...good to go. 354946[/snapback] The only other place open at 2AM in these parts is Jack in the Box, and I do love Jack in the Box. I just love my cheese while drunk, so Taco Cabana wins. And Xanax! Blackout anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 That's the "few exceptions" I was talking about. An 18 year old guy with a 16 year old girlfriend is called High School. But, just a guess...how many normal relationships of that nature get prosecuted as statuatory rape? 354912[/snapback] This type of thing would have Travis Henry doing a 20 yr. sentence if a judge really wanted to screw him! (15 yr. old girl that said she was 18) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 That, in this case, is a bit of a misconception. Sure Jacko's team has been playing the "media sympathy" card for all they can...but the facts are (and I have been following the case - and discussing it with my sister the defense attorney - since the prosecution started !@#$ing it up so comically) that the prosecution chose to put on a shaky case with accusers they knew were impeachable, presented in front of a judge who blatantly allows them to commit prejudicial error (and himself probably commits reversible error) that will almost certainly cause an appellate court to declare a mistrial. Even if Jacko's team hadn't been playing the media game, this case is FUBAR'd well beyond anything they could have done. Jackson will ultimately get off not because he's rich, but because the court and prosecution have been ungodly stupid throughout this whole process. 354917[/snapback] I guess I'd have to actually follow it to know what you're talking about. Please don't bring me up to speed - I really don't want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 That, in this case, is a bit of a misconception. Sure Jacko's team has been playing the "media sympathy" card for all they can...but the facts are (and I have been following the case - and discussing it with my sister the defense attorney - since the prosecution started !@#$ing it up so comically) that the prosecution chose to put on a shaky case with accusers they knew were impeachable, presented in front of a judge who blatantly allows them to commit prejudicial error (and himself probably commits reversible error) that will almost certainly cause an appellate court to declare a mistrial. Even if Jacko's team hadn't been playing the media game, this case is FUBAR'd well beyond anything they could have done. Jackson will ultimately get off not because he's rich, but because the court and prosecution have been ungodly stupid throughout this whole process. 354917[/snapback] As an attorney, I certainly agree that the prosecution has F-ed up this case. They have fallen into the O.J. trial trap - you do not need 50 witnesses!!!!! If this were anyother person the trial would have been a 3-5 week trial. I think this went beyond that point. The more you put out there, the easier it is to poke holes into. In law more is not always better (in fact it is usually NOT better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 As an attorney, I certainly agree that the prosecution has F-ed up this case. They have fallen into the O.J. trial trap - you do not need 50 witnesses!!!!! If this were anyother person the trial would have been a 3-5 week trial. I think this went beyond that point. The more you put out there, the easier it is to poke holes into. In law more is not always better (in fact it is usually NOT better). 355239[/snapback] You particularly don't need 50 witnesses when 45 of them can't testify to the actual accusations, but only to presumed prior bad acts, and ones of which there's no criminal record...which is why they needed 50 witnesses, because their actual case was weak enough that they felt they needed to introduce prejudicial testimony...which the judge allowed??? I learned this stuff watching reruns of "Law & Order"...and I know that has about an accurate portrayal of trial law as a cheese sandwich. And the MJ prosecutors couldn't even manage to achieve that level of propriety? Jacko's going to get off not because he's innocent, and not because he's got a kick-ass defense team...but because he's being prosecuted by a bunch of !@#$ing monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Is anybody surprised? To all of you actual, or pseudo libs.....why are you in favor of politicians, prisoners, war criminals, etc. who harm us, and our children? Do you simply hate our way of life? Guilt? What is wrong with you? To all of you dems.....you will continue to be the losers that you presently are until you rid your party of this type of lowlife. He was against smoking in bars, but is FOR more rights for sex offenders. It is a shame. I wish that I could vote for more democrats, but the party is a vile, sinking ship. Another disgusting display by the party of Hillary 354086[/snapback] Could you explain how you determined that Silver is protecting sex offenders or "for" more rights for sex offenders? I mean, I don't want to accuse you of going off half-cocked like Michael Savage on crack but perhaps you have any hard evidence of your accusations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hvae you seen that painting in his house of him surrounded by cherubs(and they all have faces resembling Liz taylor as a kid)? Just that alone would have me convict him. <shivers/> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 Could you explain how you determined that Silver is protecting sex offenders or "for" more rights for sex offenders? I mean, I don't want to accuse you of going off half-cocked like Michael Savage on crack but perhaps you have any hard evidence of your accusations? 355307[/snapback] Silver has been holding up this legislation for 5 years. Read the link provided in this thread by Albany NY. He is said to have protected a staffer who is a sex offender (rapist). Then, just continue to rationalize away as a phony liberal stooge. And enjoy yourself while doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts