0
   

The jackson verdict is FINALLY in

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 05:24 pm
I don't doubt what you say. What bearing on this subject, though? It's almost as if you think I'd support the sgt...

.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 05:28 pm
nah not at all, just my rambling on the subject of "justice" and how it really works and how the john/jane q public thinks it works.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 05:33 pm
Usually, crap like this was relegated to the shadows, or small towns, or covered up with at least a deferential nod to shame.

With OJ-- it was big, loud and in our face.

There's no shame about it anymore. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 06:46 pm
I never worked in small towns so I wouldn't know about that, I am, however, familiar with how things work on the socio/political level of justice.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 06:51 pm
What nonsense--Lizzie Borden walked because twelve "good men and true" refused to accept that a nice middle class white woman would murder her parents. That was a trial not simply of national celebrity, but international fame.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 07:05 pm
Did you catch the Lizzie verdict on CNN?

Nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 07:42 pm
You think television is the only valid source for the news?

Nonsense.

No wonder you're so ill-informed on such a wide-range of topics.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 07:48 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, though you likely will even though I'm correct--television is reputed as a medium which has revolutionized news and changed the way society gets information. Therefore, with the advent of TV, and CNN--24/7 news-- people are like gathered spectators of shared events--and the impact is significantly enhanced.

...which trumps your lame Lizzie Borden.

If you weren't so busy trying to insult people and create scenarios in which you are correct, you wouldn't have just stepped on your weenie.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 07:49 pm
I do believe you two will be married one day.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 07:52 pm
I am not sufficiently well-endowed to step on my penis.

You wrote, in reference to the Simpson verdict: "There's no shame about it anymore. Or at least, that's how it seems to me." This implies that there is a lack of judicial virtue now which was not evident in the past. I used the example of the Borden case to point out that such things have been going on for a long time.

Your remarks about television are non-sequiturs, and have no relation to a specious contention that there now is no shame about sham verdicts (allegedly sham--we're not members of any of these juries, and are ill-placed to judge), as though there were any such shame in the past.

I know it's difficult for you to follow such lines of debate, but do try to keep up.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:06 pm
Do you imply Lizzie Borden's jury was paid off?

She was acquitted because she was a woman--not because someone bribed a jury. Pity, not profit. Your example is completely unrelated.

The OJ jury clearly had impeccable evidence to find him guilty--but that jury knowingly let a murderer go--as did the Blake jury---because the juries were paid off.

And, you are incorrect about what the discussion I was having was about. My remarks about television are a large part of the point I make. That it is now being done "big, loud, and in our faces".

Borden's trial didn't have the capability to approach the impact of OJ's.

If you disagree, fine, but you won't erroneously reword my statement or the line of conversation I was having.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:09 pm
The example is very germane because you implied that there is no shame. Now you want to suggest that juries are being bought off, but you bring not the least evidence to support your contetion. This is typical of the quality of your rants. If you have proof that either the Simpson or the Blake juries were bought off, provide it.

You obviously don't understand the importance of the printed news in centuries gone by, if you think television is more important to people now than newspapers were to people then.

I copied your sentence directly from your post without alteration, i reworded nothing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:11 pm
kickycan wrote:
I do believe you two will be married one day.


That suggestion is too disgusting to describe.

You really do have a talent for sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong and saying exactly the wrong thing. Do you work to cultivate that ability?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:12 pm
Yes. I work damn hard at it, in fact. That's why I'm the best.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:14 pm
Were i better positioned financially, i'd have a golden "Mr. Malaprop" statuette made up and send it off to you.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:18 pm
Thanks. You know I cherish these little stolen moments together with you.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:26 pm
Lash wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Lash, You have no idea how the legal system in this country works. Show us direct evidence of "paid juries" in the Jackson, OJ and Blake trials.


CI, I'm afraid in this case, you're the naive one. If I could show evidence of it, I'd be talking in to a microphone.

If you don't believe juries can be breeched and bought, you are living in a fantasy world.

Had you bothered to read back, you will see this was the main point of the conversation.

Quote:
You really do have a talent for sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong and saying exactly the wrong thing. Do you work to cultivate that ability?

Astonishing irony.

Quote:
kickycan wrote:
I do believe you two will be <edited for abusive content> one day.

It was with extreme self-control that I passed this with no comment.
I can't come up with one sentence that would pass TOS.
Why don't you go find someone who wants to debate with you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:28 pm
kicky is one of the few posters on a2k that I enjoy reading, because it usually makes me laugh - or at least brings a smile. Don't be too hard on kicky, Set; he's really only one of the funny guys on a2k.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:40 pm
kickycan wrote:
I do believe you two will be married one day.


thanks for the much-needed cackle, kix
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:46 pm
Somebody's read The Runaway Jury.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 06:25:23