Posted on 04/16/2005 10:04:11 AM PDT by Hawk44
I agee with everything you said.
And I don't see it getting better. The border issue is going to be exploited by shewhoshallnotbenamed and a lot of politically unsavy people will buy into her move to the center.
We need to have lunch with our town freepers soon to discuss these issues.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Should you wish to become better informed, please ping me on one of the Schiavo threads, and I will be happy to give you a reading of just the 2d CA alone. That was not the purpose of this thread.
"You're cracking me up and I don't even know you."
And, apparently you're calling me a liar, as well, and you don't even know me.
Your apparent difficulty with me seems to be as a result of being referred to as a shill, and to the observation that you're using two different strategies to promote your beliefs about two court cases, while reprimanding others about what you are observed doing.
If that violates the rules about argumentation, then mea culpa.
But, it is an interesting observation, isn't it?
If it made sense, it would be interesting.
And since you've mischaracterized my support to MS, then yes, I think it's entirely valid to call you a liar.
Doesn't that violate Jim's rule about personal attacks (when you know nothing about the person, as you have admitted?).
Or do the rules apply only in one direction?
As for your confusion, maybe if you read it really slowly, without the prejudice of utilizing two positions.
Being a FReeper means having broad shoulders, because sometimes we're all brought up short on something that we don't even realize we're doing.
Have a nice weekend.
You have Freepmail.
"Lots of problems here. Witnesses have not been the best in the world. All seem to have somewhat shady past."
It's a sad state of affairs when a witness has to pass a background check with essentially a spotless record to be considered credible. Even media commentators say things like, "She is not a credible witness but the evidence seems to back her crazy story." What?!?! Isn't that essentially the definition of credibility?
Everybody's going on about how nuts this mother is but sit her down next to Jackson and she is the epitome of sane, compared to him.
You too!
Rules like dragging conversations over to an unrelated thread? Maybe if you abided by the rules, I would too.
As far as personal attacks, when someone mischaracterizes what I've said, I'll call them a liar. And if Jim doesn't like it, he can ban me.
And if you think I can't point out where freepers are relying on unsourced material on one matter and point out that pedophiles prey on dysfunctional families without being a hypocrite, you're sadly mistaken.
Then when the sexual abuse is discovered and reported and the matter goes to trial, the pedophile's attorneys claim the complainants aren't reliable.
It's worked for a number of years.
Bingo!
And as a jury of his peers, how do normal people support themselves for months at a time on juror pay? I know I would be filing for bankruptcy and losing my house if I was sitting in a court room that long. Too bad this justice is based on how much justice the defendant can afford, instead of the people on the jury.
There are thousands of pedophiles monitoring this trial to learn how to target their future victims so they won't get convicted.
Still, I can feel quite comfortable in assessing guilt to both OJ and Blake, and feel that the very visible MJ demonstrates a clear pattern of pedophilia even if the witnesses are whacked out, while at the same time accepting the rule of law in the Schiavo case. Somehow, I don't feel at all hypocritical.
I don't have to like Michael S, to accept the judgment. Most of the arguments there were about the quality of judicial process rather than quality judgements on Michael himself.
The difference for me is that I stop at the jury decision on OJ, rather than start a campaign to impeach everyone in sight and issue threats to anyone supporting OJ. Nor did I request Congress to create some law to stop the travesty.
Great idea. While we're at it, let's do away with the trial altogether. It will save a lot of time and money to simply throw people in jail without a trial. But, hey, we all know they're guilty, so it's OK.
So when a 40 something year old man insists sleeping with little boys is a beautiful thing and not sexual at all.....you believe him?
The hi jackers are everywhere these days.
Aren't they though? Just when you think it's safe....
LOL
Ouch!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.