Not only O.J which probably will be good for Iraq, but why not send Paris Hilton and Britney Spers with him, what a show to entertain our troops and those suffering Iraquis, they lives can't be more miserable that what they have now by being delighted by our western civilized values.
realistic2008: Not only O.J which probably will be good for Iraq,
As long as OJ finally pays for the crimes he committed I do not care whether it is Vegas or Iraq. And if this all a frame-up who really cares?.....maybe it means we will finally be through with him. The media gives him WAY too much attention. He has become the joke of the century!
Stacy1051972: As long as OJ finally pays for the crimes he
OJ's a red herring and the ones who see the 'shiny object' for what it is are ignoring it - or at least putting it in it's proper context- PBS, Countdown. Sad, but I can't hink of more to add to the list. the Daily show even refrains from dwelling on this final lap of the circle in the Karmic realm of the OJ saga. WE have others who yet have felt the 'goes around comes around ' reality - but it is high time they do.
Purple Girl: OJ's a red herring and the ones who see the
Alot can be told about a nation, by those they choose to celebrate.
Pam Anderson
Brittany
Paris Hilton
OJ
Gibson
Richards
Martha Stewart
Just a few of our "virtuous," celebrities.
transendentilist: Alot can be told about a nation, by those they
The MSM has a hard on for tragic celebrities, but not tragedy in general.
Sure, they dabble in fires and shootings and tornados and a few damp black people in NOLA.
But that's not as substantive as a gun toting O.J. stealing back a room full of shit he'd box up and send to a U-Store-It.
I don't think they'd cover O.J. in Iraq.
Iraq is a media blind spot. Mostly.
Anyone who goes there for any reason but to laud how wonderful it is to shop for cheap rugs in Baghdad under the protection of 200 marines and choppers and snipers isn't getting a bumper on CNN at 2 AM.
Nevertheless, Iraq is O.J.'s paradise: a place where killing a white woman and a Jew is considered the first step to holding public office.
Randy
fantagor: The MSM has a hard on for tragic celebrities, but
Aah! Now, finally, I'll get some answers...can anyone tell me how a person can be found NOT GUILTY of murder-but can still be found GUILTY of being responsible for their deaths if the murder weapon was a KNIFE? If you kill someone with your CAR,it works;you didn't mean to run them over, but you're responsible for their death. I can see it with a GUN-you shot someone,you didn't mean to,but you're still responsible for their deaths.
Now how does that work with a KNIFE? Either you stabbed/slashed them,or you didn't!
Passenger57: Aah! Now, finally, I'll get some answers...can anyone tell me
Um, really, REALLY simple answer. The burden of proof is higher for taking away someone's freedom than for taking away their cash. It's called the difference between civil and criminal courts. There is simply no question of INTENT involved, and there never was, but interesting that you would invent it. The burden of proof in a civil court is a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE- not BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, sound familiar?
It's kind of similar to the way a corporation can knowingly, and with depraved indifference, kill someone, but even though the corporation has the same legal standing as a living person there is no actual living person to try in criminal court for the crime, since corporate executives are ethically and legally bound to use whatever ninja tactics make a corporation money. -thank SCOTUS- It's easier to convict a defense attorney for enterprise corruption than a corporate exec for any criminal act that isn't strictly about money, so we should all be grateful at this point that at least we have civil courts.
Aside from that, one jury was crazy and one was not.
Bruupo: Um, really, REALLY simple answer. The burden of proof is
I agree with your comments... Except for the last line
It's "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and the prosecution's bumbling left room for such
This is one of those cases where I suspect, had the "Scottish verdict" of "Not proven" (In effect: "We're pretty damned sure that you did it, but the prosecution didn't meet the burden of proof. You're not going to be punished, but we want you to know what we think") been an option, that's where the jury would have gone
Rand: Bruupo: I agree with your comments... Except for the last
I have to agree with a few others, why is it the court jesters have the best news and commentary and yet the MSM pisses on itself before it will go to the mats for the people it reports to?
Love the show, went to the last one. But Bill why only when your show is on do you put something on Huffpost?
Let's have even the occasionaly blog/rant/post/whatever about things that really frost you that are not going to be on your show.
Love ya anyway.
Libsrule: Hey Bill, I have to agree with a few others,
OJ in Iraq? I thought he was a pacifist, no?
Oh, I get it ... he would be killed.
I'd like to see the Bush babies go to Iraq without extra protection ... and the shrub himself and mrs. shrub ... and jeb shrub, aw hell, send the whole durn family, they're all criminals.
peacehappens: OJ in Iraq? I thought he was a pacifist, no?
Send the Juice to Paris to look for the blue Renault. Send the French police to Boulder to look for Jon Benet's killer. Send the Boulder police to Bel-Air to look for Nicole's and Ron's "real killers".
KarmaSartre: Send the Juice to Paris to look for the blue
Pam Anderson
Brittany
Paris Hilton
OJ
Gibson
Richards
Martha Stewart
Just a few of our "virtuous," celebrities.
Sure, they dabble in fires and shootings and tornados and a few damp black people in NOLA.
But that's not as substantive as a gun toting O.J. stealing back a room full of shit he'd box up and send to a U-Store-It.
I don't think they'd cover O.J. in Iraq.
Iraq is a media blind spot. Mostly.
Anyone who goes there for any reason but to laud how wonderful it is to shop for cheap rugs in Baghdad under the protection of 200 marines and choppers and snipers isn't getting a bumper on CNN at 2 AM.
Nevertheless, Iraq is O.J.'s paradise: a place where killing a white woman and a Jew is considered the first step to holding public office.
Randy
Now how does that work with a KNIFE? Either you stabbed/slashed them,or you didn't!
It's kind of similar to the way a corporation can knowingly, and with depraved indifference, kill someone, but even though the corporation has the same legal standing as a living person there is no actual living person to try in criminal court for the crime, since corporate executives are ethically and legally bound to use whatever ninja tactics make a corporation money. -thank SCOTUS- It's easier to convict a defense attorney for enterprise corruption than a corporate exec for any criminal act that isn't strictly about money, so we should all be grateful at this point that at least we have civil courts.
Aside from that, one jury was crazy and one was not.
I agree with your comments... Except for the last line
It's "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and the prosecution's bumbling left room for such
This is one of those cases where I suspect, had the "Scottish verdict" of "Not proven" (In effect: "We're pretty damned sure that you did it, but the prosecution didn't meet the burden of proof. You're not going to be punished, but we want you to know what we think") been an option, that's where the jury would have gone
I have to agree with a few others, why is it the court jesters have the best news and commentary and yet the MSM pisses on itself before it will go to the mats for the people it reports to?
Love the show, went to the last one. But Bill why only when your show is on do you put something on Huffpost?
Let's have even the occasionaly blog/rant/post/whatever about things that really frost you that are not going to be on your show.
Love ya anyway.
Oh, I get it ... he would be killed.
I'd like to see the Bush babies go to Iraq without extra protection ... and the shrub himself and mrs. shrub ... and jeb shrub, aw hell, send the whole durn family, they're all criminals.