Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

No, but you will probably call me something far more insulting (in private, of course) simply because I have the gall to speak "Mexican."

P.S. I didn't put it in English simply because I am not aware of a good translation of this phrase.

 

Is "Mexican" a language?

grgwll you have serious race issues

 

What the hell are you talking about? How did you draw that conclusion? I specifically said that before the trial I gave OJ the benefit of the doubt. After seeing the evidence I concluded he did it.

Now why don't you answer my question big boy?...

Because you can't. If you say "guilty", it proves (in your mind) you're a racist. If you say "Not" then you must afford the same respect to Delay. Which you have already made clear you will not.

 

Considering that the last question that you asked me was when I came to the conclusion that O.J. was guilty, your entire statement above makes absolutely no sense.

But I will try to interpret for you and assume that you are still asking the same question.

I drew my conclusion on O.J. when I thought that I had seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion. Simple as that.

I didn't pay much attention to it before the trial, so most of the things I based my opinion on came from the information presented at trial.

Moreover, the O.J. case didn't really concern me. I had no personal connection, and, regardless of the outcome, I knew that this guy would not be shaping the laws that would determine the future of my country.

I HAVE paid attention to the Delay case before the trial. I know far more about campaign finance regulations that I do about murder. And, like in the O.J. case, I have seen enough evidence to persuade me that he committed the act of which he is accused.

Whether he is legally guilty is a completely separate question. As I said, the presumption of innocence is a LEGAL presumption (therefore I could not serve on a jury in this case.)

However, it is NOT a political, moral, or ethical presumption.

But I'm sure this distinction is lost on people who can't even distinguish between civil liability and criminal guilt.

 

I think you mean that I have issues with racists. And that's certainly true.

 

While I know "OBJECTIVE" is not a word you understand, please tell me what OBJECTIVE evidence you have on the Delay case?

 

No.

I'm not your research assistant. Go look it up for yourself.

I never made any claims based on this evidence, and I never suggested that you should beleive in his guilt. Simply that I believe it.

But why should I go do a bunch of research just to provide fodder for you.

Obviously, you will not believe anything that disfavors any republican, regardless of what evidence is used.

So, if you really want the info (which you clearly don't), then go look it up for yourself. I'm not your slave.

 

Hye gkillion, give it up. When grgrwill gets cornered making accusations and assertions he cannot back up, this is his MO. This is how he ended another thread with me concerning the American torture of children.

"So I'm not going to bother doing a lot of research on your behalf, since I'm sure you will just ignore it. Plus, I can't find any stories from any of the neo-con media"

Really odd about neo-con media since I asked for references from CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, LATimes

 

Oh... so you have none. Just as I thought.

The rules are...You make a claim, it's your job to prove it.

Bye.

 

I know...Sometimes I just can't resist. Thanks though

 

I know exactly what you mean. I have about made it to senior member status on this thread alone

 

If I thought that either of you guys were actually one bit interested in either of these issues, I would gladly provide information.

But you are not.

You simply want me to provide fodder for you. There's no story I could provide, no evidence that I could submit, that you would accept if it shines a negative light on Republicans.

And what is the point anyway? No sane person is still reading this crap. I think it's just us, and I'm not here to be your whipping boy.

You have already proven that you don't even have the most basic understanding of any of these issues, so I'm not going to waste my time providing you information that would be lost on you.

 

Three things:

1) Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am not interested in the issues. I think I have very advanced understanding of the issue(s), you just don't like my understandings.

2) The burden of proof is on you. You made the accusations. If you were truly interested in changing my mind, some evidence would go a long way

3) I am very passionate about my positions, as are you, and I'm gettin' to be a pretty old guy, set in my ways, and I am not EVER going to be persuaded by innuendo, unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated accusations, and poor logic. Sorry, but I need a little more.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

I believe this is what they are refering to.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

Yes, it probably is.

When it's a Republican, it's "innocent until proven guilty."

When it's O.J., it's "guilty even though not proven guilty."

Got it. Thanks.

 

True. I should not have lumped you into the group of which I was speaking.

But the thing is, I never could change your mind, regardless of the evidence that I present.

Moreover, the "guilt" of Delay was not my point. My point was that Delay is afforded the presumption of innocence, but O.J. is not. Why???

 

This is my own personal take. It is one or all of the following
1) The nature of the crime.
People are much more apt to forgive "White Collar" crime and therefore, much more apt to assume innocence
2) The history of the parties involved
OJ had quite a history of violence making the accusations more believable
3) Exposure to the evidence
Let's face it, there was ton of evidence in the OJ trial and it was all debated every night on every new analsysis show. The Delay thing just hasn't received that much press
4) The political nature
It is just a fact of life that these are really are sometimes politically motivated (ie Bill Clinton). As long as there is a hint of politics involved, many are going to be more apt to presume innocence
5) Human nature
I hope this does not apply to me, but a great number of people relish in the destruction of the rich and famous (ie Martha Stewart), they want to believe they are guilty. Delay doesn't carry that kind of clout, OJ did.

I don't know if Delay is guilty or not, but given all the information available (from both sides) I am inclined to presume innocence (at this juncture)

OJ, on the other hand, given all the information available (from all sides), I am inclined to presume he was guilty.

 

OK dumbass, show me one instance where I did not afford OJ the presumption of innocence before guilt. I specifically stated that I did not form an opinion on him untill I had heard the evidence in the trial. I'm giving Delay the same treatment. He will never get that from you, however, because you are so blinded by your hatred of the right wing.

In your predujucial little mind you have already convicted him, with "evidence" that you say exists but cannot produce.

In typical leftist wacko (and you are a wacko) fashion you have tried to drag race into the discussion, you have called anyone who disagrees with you a liar, you cowardly change the subject when you have been beaten, and you contradict yourself with your schizophrenic logic.

I prefer to converse and debate with reasonable sensible people.
You will be hard pressed to get me to respond to anymore of your posts.

You are a troubled individual!

 

Good work on the name calling. You are certainly an expert in that.

Unfortunately, more complex ideas seem to be beyond your understanding.

So just call people names. Really, it's the best thing you've got.

 

True. But I'm not clear. Are you defending this, or simply stating it?

Personally, I don't think it's right to have some kind of lesser presumption of innoncence simply because someon is ACCUSED of a more serious crime.

And Delay has a history that makes the accusations against him more believable.

True. But, again, are you defending this? Should it be easier for Delay to get off simply because his case has received less press?

Agreed.

Agreed.

Have you really looked at "all of the information available" regarding Delay?