turbonator

C'mon, Spike. OJ should've been sent away for life. He walked
because he was rich and famous. Just like Michael Jackson.


Spike > wrote in
:

> I have yet to say I believe or do not believe.... because I do not
> know what the truth is. So, I'm not going to hang someone until the
> court case comes to a close, with both the prosecution and defense
> having given it their best shot, and it's time to judge base upon
> the weight of the evidence. That IS how the law is supposed to work.
> Not, the way you indicate; find 'em guilty and hang 'em first and
> worry about whether or not they did it later.
>
> As for OJ.... "better that a guilty man go free than one innocent
> man be convicted" has been the basis for US law since the beginning
> of the nation because the colonists looked back at European
> countries they came from for guidance. They decided they did not
> want a system where the state could, and would, convict people and
> even execute them without just cause; simply because a neighbor made
> an accusation.
>
> By the way, OJ was not found "not guilty" as so many believe. The
> jury found that the prosecution had not proven it's case in chief
> according to the law of the State of California as contained in the
> California Penal Code.
>
> As an example, for burglary to be proven, the prosecution must
> prove
> that
> a) an individual
> b) entered a residence, which is defined as
> 1) a building
> 2) having a minimum of four walls
> 3) and a door,
> c) that people actually resided there full time (it is not
> vacant),
> d) and the individual entered the residence for the purpose of
> 1) taking the property of another, or
> 2) some other felony, (such as rape, murder, etc)
> e) without the permission of the resident.
>
> NOTE: This is not a direct quote from the CPC, so the actual wording
> may be different, but the concept is absolute under California law.
>
> If any one of the points or sub-points listed in a law is not
> proven, then the law can not be proven to have been broken.
>
> For example: A garage has four walls and a door, but people do not
> live there, so the crime of burglary could not be proven.
>
> This is a simple burglary. You can imagine all the points which must
> be proven in the case of a murder/homicide... even if there are
> witnesses. And it only takes one error with the chain of custody of
> the evidence to have a case thrown out. In OJ's case, there were no
> witnesses, and the prosecution blew parts of the case.
>
> Now, suppose you were in OJ's place, and you DID NOT kill anyone.
> Based upon what was presented in the case, you would want the jury
> to find you guilty?
>
> People who have never had to actually work with the law have a hard
> time understanding why it is not as simple as they believe it should
> be. They do not understand why the case can't be solved and the
> guilty convicted just like it happens on television. The simple
> answer is that the law is not that simple, and for good reason. We
> do not want to send innocent people to the gas chamber when they are
> not guilty. And we have seen enough cases to show even that doesn't
> always work.
>
> That is why I don't judge Bush without having the facts; provable
> facts; and not just on what people say about him.
>
> I take it would be perfectly fine with you if I and others started
> spreading unsubstantiated information about you... like you are a
> child molesting pedophile who is an active member of NAMBLA.... even
> worse, you don't drive a Mustang! you drive a ricer! (((my OT
> point))) .... and you would want everyone to believed it without
> question? Then, the first time something happens to a child in your
> neck of the woods, you'd want to be tried and convicted without any
> evidence being presented other than people repeating what they had
> heard or read.
>
> Getting back to OJ; in any case I personally investigated, while I
> might suspect someone is guilty, I could not charge them and lock
> them up. I had to pursue the case as if they were not...eliminating
> every other possibility, until I had enough physical evidence to
> charge them, or there was no other possibility that someone else did
> the crime. Then they could be charged and locked away UNTIL some
> really good defense lawyer found a chink in my case. Look how long
> Scott Peterson walked around before he was charged.
>
> If all criminals were to think the law should work as you do it
> would be so easy to lock people away on the flimsiest of rumor...
> no real evidence required. It sure would have made my job easier.
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:58:37 -0500, "Brian" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spike" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:41 -0700, Ashton Crusher
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The proof has been all around you for several years. You
>>>>obviously choose not to see it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry, I must have missed when Bush was tried and convicted for
>>> war crimes or impeached based upon the "PROOF" you say exists. !
>>>
>>
>>What about OJ? Seriously. You believe everything your president
>>says, until he is impeached? Wow. I've got some real estate to sell
>>you! There is no need to try and figure out what specific lies are
>>being told to this country. Just understand you are being lied to on
>>a regular basis. Question authority.
>>
>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address
>

Everyone from the prosecution to the defense, cops, etc, acknowledged
that the prosecution made major blunders which cost them the case. The
cops acknowledge errors in the chain of custody of evidence.

Have I said he didn't do it? No. Personally, I think it's a darn good
chance he did, but the official result is the verdict handed down by
the jury.

Is there a different set of laws for the rich and famous? No. The laws
are the same no matter who faces them. The difference is in the people
who conduct the process, begriming with the District Attorney, and
working down to the jury. A lot of my fellow cops worked the LA scene.
I don't know for sure, but my guess is that none that I knew would be
swayed by someone's wealth or position; in fact, most would be happy
to bust someone rich and famous. So, I don't think a case gets blown
during the investigation.

Of course, there always has been one major difference. The wealthy
can afford the expensive lawyers to get them off, the poor can't. And
juries often fall into the trap of "awe of fame or position".

As for MJ, I don't know. Maybe he is just plain weird. But, the
charges the prosecution elected to push were inane. They need a new
DA.

Perhaps, because I have been directly involved in the law and have
seen that it, more often than not, actually works the way it should, I
am far less cynical. Note that I did not say it works right every
time. I had cases go bad when they looked air tight. It happens. Often
it was out of my hands what took place in the offices upstairs, or
what verdict a jury reaches. I, and my people, did our part of the
legal system. We investigated and reported. We aren't the judge and
jury.


On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:34:33 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>C'mon, Spike. OJ should've been sent away for life. He walked
>because he was rich and famous. Just like Michael Jackson.
>
>
>Spike > wrote in
:
>
>> I have yet to say I believe or do not believe.... because I do not
>> know what the truth is. So, I'm not going to hang someone until the
>> court case comes to a close, with both the prosecution and defense
>> having given it their best shot, and it's time to judge base upon
>> the weight of the evidence. That IS how the law is supposed to work.
>> Not, the way you indicate; find 'em guilty and hang 'em first and
>> worry about whether or not they did it later.
>>
>> As for OJ.... "better that a guilty man go free than one innocent
>> man be convicted" has been the basis for US law since the beginning
>> of the nation because the colonists looked back at European
>> countries they came from for guidance. They decided they did not
>> want a system where the state could, and would, convict people and
>> even execute them without just cause; simply because a neighbor made
>> an accusation.
>>
>> By the way, OJ was not found "not guilty" as so many believe. The
>> jury found that the prosecution had not proven it's case in chief
>> according to the law of the State of California as contained in the
>> California Penal Code.
>>
>> As an example, for burglary to be proven, the prosecution must
>> prove
>> that
>> a) an individual
>> b) entered a residence, which is defined as
>> 1) a building
>> 2) having a minimum of four walls
>> 3) and a door,
>> c) that people actually resided there full time (it is not
>> vacant),
>> d) and the individual entered the residence for the purpose of
>> 1) taking the property of another, or
>> 2) some other felony, (such as rape, murder, etc)
>> e) without the permission of the resident.
>>
>> NOTE: This is not a direct quote from the CPC, so the actual wording
>> may be different, but the concept is absolute under California law.
>>
>> If any one of the points or sub-points listed in a law is not
>> proven, then the law can not be proven to have been broken.
>>
>> For example: A garage has four walls and a door, but people do not
>> live there, so the crime of burglary could not be proven.
>>
>> This is a simple burglary. You can imagine all the points which must
>> be proven in the case of a murder/homicide... even if there are
>> witnesses. And it only takes one error with the chain of custody of
>> the evidence to have a case thrown out. In OJ's case, there were no
>> witnesses, and the prosecution blew parts of the case.
>>
>> Now, suppose you were in OJ's place, and you DID NOT kill anyone.
>> Based upon what was presented in the case, you would want the jury
>> to find you guilty?
>>
>> People who have never had to actually work with the law have a hard
>> time understanding why it is not as simple as they believe it should
>> be. They do not understand why the case can't be solved and the
>> guilty convicted just like it happens on television. The simple
>> answer is that the law is not that simple, and for good reason. We
>> do not want to send innocent people to the gas chamber when they are
>> not guilty. And we have seen enough cases to show even that doesn't
>> always work.
>>
>> That is why I don't judge Bush without having the facts; provable
>> facts; and not just on what people say about him.
>>
>> I take it would be perfectly fine with you if I and others started
>> spreading unsubstantiated information about you... like you are a
>> child molesting pedophile who is an active member of NAMBLA.... even
>> worse, you don't drive a Mustang! you drive a ricer! (((my OT
>> point))) .... and you would want everyone to believed it without
>> question? Then, the first time something happens to a child in your
>> neck of the woods, you'd want to be tried and convicted without any
>> evidence being presented other than people repeating what they had
>> heard or read.
>>
>> Getting back to OJ; in any case I personally investigated, while I
>> might suspect someone is guilty, I could not charge them and lock
>> them up. I had to pursue the case as if they were not...eliminating
>> every other possibility, until I had enough physical evidence to
>> charge them, or there was no other possibility that someone else did
>> the crime. Then they could be charged and locked away UNTIL some
>> really good defense lawyer found a chink in my case. Look how long
>> Scott Peterson walked around before he was charged.
>>
>> If all criminals were to think the law should work as you do it
>> would be so easy to lock people away on the flimsiest of rumor...
>> no real evidence required. It sure would have made my job easier.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:58:37 -0500, "Brian" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Spike" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:41 -0700, Ashton Crusher
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The proof has been all around you for several years. You
>>>>>obviously choose not to see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I must have missed when Bush was tried and convicted for
>>>> war crimes or impeached based upon the "PROOF" you say exists. !
>>>>
>>>
>>>What about OJ? Seriously. You believe everything your president
>>>says, until he is impeached? Wow. I've got some real estate to sell
>>>you! There is no need to try and figure out what specific lies are
>>>being told to this country. Just understand you are being lied to on
>>>a regular basis. Question authority.
>>>
>>
>> Spike
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>>
>> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
>> -JFK Inaugural Address
>>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Spike > wrote in
:

> Everyone from the prosecution to the defense, cops, etc,
acknowledged
> that the prosecution made major blunders which cost them the case.
The
> cops acknowledge errors in the chain of custody of evidence.
>
> Have I said he didn't do it? No. Personally, I think it's a darn
good
> chance he did, but the official result is the verdict handed down by
> the jury.
>
> Is there a different set of laws for the rich and famous? No. The
laws
> are the same no matter who faces them. The difference is in the
people
> who conduct the process, begriming with the District Attorney, and
> working down to the jury. A lot of my fellow cops worked the LA
scene.
> I don't know for sure, but my guess is that none that I knew would
be
> swayed by someone's wealth or position; in fact, most would be happy
> to bust someone rich and famous. So, I don't think a case gets blown
> during the investigation.

I don't think it's the DA or cops that get swayed so much as the jury
and the media. But the rich and famous by and large get
"preferential" treatment over us peons.

> Of course, there always has been one major difference. The wealthy
> can afford the expensive lawyers to get them off, the poor can't.
And
> juries often fall into the trap of "awe of fame or position".

There ya go. You've just pointed out the Big Inequity found within
our system of justice.

> As for MJ, I don't know. Maybe he is just plain weird. But, the
> charges the prosecution elected to push were inane. They need a new
> DA.

Any man who has children in his bed needs help and/or to be put away.

> Perhaps, because I have been directly involved in the law and have
> seen that it, more often than not, actually works the way it should,
I
> am far less cynical. Note that I did not say it works right every
> time. I had cases go bad when they looked air tight. It happens.
Often
> it was out of my hands what took place in the offices upstairs, or
> what verdict a jury reaches. I, and my people, did our part of the
> legal system. We investigated and reported. We aren't the judge and
> jury.
>
>
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:34:33 GMT, Joe >
wrote:
>
>>C'mon, Spike. OJ should've been sent away for life. He walked
>>because he was rich and famous. Just like Michael Jackson.
>>
>>
>>Spike > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> I have yet to say I believe or do not believe.... because I do not
>>> know what the truth is. So, I'm not going to hang someone until
the
>>> court case comes to a close, with both the prosecution and defense
>>> having given it their best shot, and it's time to judge base upon
>>> the weight of the evidence. That IS how the law is supposed to
work.
>>> Not, the way you indicate; find 'em guilty and hang 'em first and
>>> worry about whether or not they did it later.
>>>
>>> As for OJ.... "better that a guilty man go free than one innocent
>>> man be convicted" has been the basis for US law since the
beginning
>>> of the nation because the colonists looked back at European
>>> countries they came from for guidance. They decided they did not
>>> want a system where the state could, and would, convict people and
>>> even execute them without just cause; simply because a neighbor
made
>>> an accusation.
>>>
>>> By the way, OJ was not found "not guilty" as so many believe. The
>>> jury found that the prosecution had not proven it's case in chief
>>> according to the law of the State of California as contained in
the
>>> California Penal Code.
>>>
>>> As an example, for burglary to be proven, the prosecution must
>>> prove
>>> that
>>> a) an individual
>>> b) entered a residence, which is defined as
>>> 1) a building
>>> 2) having a minimum of four walls
>>> 3) and a door,
>>> c) that people actually resided there full time (it is not
>>> vacant),
>>> d) and the individual entered the residence for the purpose of
>>> 1) taking the property of another, or
>>> 2) some other felony, (such as rape, murder, etc)
>>> e) without the permission of the resident.
>>>
>>> NOTE: This is not a direct quote from the CPC, so the actual
wording
>>> may be different, but the concept is absolute under California
law.
>>>
>>> If any one of the points or sub-points listed in a law is not
>>> proven, then the law can not be proven to have been broken.
>>>
>>> For example: A garage has four walls and a door, but people do not
>>> live there, so the crime of burglary could not be proven.
>>>
>>> This is a simple burglary. You can imagine all the points which
must
>>> be proven in the case of a murder/homicide... even if there are
>>> witnesses. And it only takes one error with the chain of custody
of
>>> the evidence to have a case thrown out. In OJ's case, there were
no
>>> witnesses, and the prosecution blew parts of the case.
>>>
>>> Now, suppose you were in OJ's place, and you DID NOT kill anyone.
>>> Based upon what was presented in the case, you would want the jury
>>> to find you guilty?
>>>
>>> People who have never had to actually work with the law have a
hard
>>> time understanding why it is not as simple as they believe it
should
>>> be. They do not understand why the case can't be solved and the
>>> guilty convicted just like it happens on television. The simple
>>> answer is that the law is not that simple, and for good reason. We
>>> do not want to send innocent people to the gas chamber when they
are
>>> not guilty. And we have seen enough cases to show even that
doesn't
>>> always work.
>>>
>>> That is why I don't judge Bush without having the facts; provable
>>> facts; and not just on what people say about him.
>>>
>>> I take it would be perfectly fine with you if I and others started
>>> spreading unsubstantiated information about you... like you are a
>>> child molesting pedophile who is an active member of NAMBLA....
even
>>> worse, you don't drive a Mustang! you drive a ricer! (((my OT
>>> point))) .... and you would want everyone to believed it without
>>> question? Then, the first time something happens to a child in
your
>>> neck of the woods, you'd want to be tried and convicted without
any
>>> evidence being presented other than people repeating what they had
>>> heard or read.
>>>
>>> Getting back to OJ; in any case I personally investigated, while I
>>> might suspect someone is guilty, I could not charge them and lock
>>> them up. I had to pursue the case as if they were
not...eliminating
>>> every other possibility, until I had enough physical evidence to
>>> charge them, or there was no other possibility that someone else
did
>>> the crime. Then they could be charged and locked away UNTIL some
>>> really good defense lawyer found a chink in my case. Look how long
>>> Scott Peterson walked around before he was charged.
>>>
>>> If all criminals were to think the law should work as you do it
>>> would be so easy to lock people away on the flimsiest of rumor...
>>> no real evidence required. It sure would have made my job easier.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:58:37 -0500, "Brian" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Spike" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:41 -0700, Ashton Crusher
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The proof has been all around you for several years. You
>>>>>>obviously choose not to see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I must have missed when Bush was tried and convicted for
>>>>> war crimes or impeached based upon the "PROOF" you say exists. !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What about OJ? Seriously. You believe everything your president
>>>>says, until he is impeached? Wow. I've got some real estate to
sell
>>>>you! There is no need to try and figure out what specific lies are
>>>>being told to this country. Just understand you are being lied to
on
>>>>a regular basis. Question authority.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Spike
>>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>>> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>>> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>>>
>>> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>>> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
>>> -JFK Inaugural Address
>>>
>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address
>

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:28:30 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>Spike > wrote in
:
>

>> swayed by someone's wealth or position; in fact, most would be happy
>> to bust someone rich and famous. So, I don't think a case gets blown
>> during the investigation.
>
>I don't think it's the DA or cops that get swayed so much as the jury
>and the media. But the rich and famous by and large get
>"preferential" treatment over us peons.

Part of that, I believe, is because such people rarely get a jury of
their peers. In other words... the rich and famous. If it were the
rich and famous sitting on the jury, they would be less awed by
someone like OJ.
>
>> Of course, there always has been one major difference. The wealthy
>> can afford the expensive lawyers to get them off, the poor can't.
>And
>> juries often fall into the trap of "awe of fame or position".
>
>There ya go. You've just pointed out the Big Inequity found within
>our system of justice.

Ah, but, that has existed in about every civilization in history. The
difference is that even the rich and famous in our system do get
punished sometimes. OJ and MJ are standout exceptions because of the
nature of the crimes.
>
>> As for MJ, I don't know. Maybe he is just plain weird. But, the
>> charges the prosecution elected to push were inane. They need a new
>> DA.
>
>Any man who has children in his bed needs help and/or to be put away.

I can think of tons of fathers, and mothers, you just convicted for
being normal. Your statement was to broad and generalized not to catch
normal parents in the web.
>
>> Perhaps, because I have been directly involved in the law and have
>> seen that it, more often than not, actually works the way it should,
>I
>> am far less cynical. Note that I did not say it works right every
>> time. I had cases go bad when they looked air tight. It happens.
>Often
>> it was out of my hands what took place in the offices upstairs, or
>> what verdict a jury reaches. I, and my people, did our part of the
>> legal system. We investigated and reported. We aren't the judge and
>> jury.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:34:33 GMT, Joe >
>wrote:
>>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Spike > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:28:30 GMT, Joe >
wrote:
>
>>Spike > wrote in
m:
>>
>
>>> swayed by someone's wealth or position; in fact, most would be
happy
>>> to bust someone rich and famous. So, I don't think a case gets
blown
>>> during the investigation.
>>
>>I don't think it's the DA or cops that get swayed so much as the
jury
>>and the media. But the rich and famous by and large get
>>"preferential" treatment over us peons.
>
> Part of that, I believe, is because such people rarely get a jury of
> their peers. In other words... the rich and famous. If it were the
> rich and famous sitting on the jury, they would be less awed by
> someone like OJ.

Maybe less awed, but no less stupid. Consider guys like Tom Cruise...


>>> Of course, there always has been one major difference. The
wealthy
>>> can afford the expensive lawyers to get them off, the poor can't.
>>And
>>> juries often fall into the trap of "awe of fame or position".
>>
>>There ya go. You've just pointed out the Big Inequity found within
>>our system of justice.
>
> Ah, but, that has existed in about every civilization in history.
The
> difference is that even the rich and famous in our system do get
> punished sometimes. OJ and MJ are standout exceptions because of the
> nature of the crimes.

IMO, those crimes are heinous. All the more reason to prosecute them
vigorously.

>>> As for MJ, I don't know. Maybe he is just plain weird. But, the
>>> charges the prosecution elected to push were inane. They need a
new
>>> DA.
>>
>>Any man who has children in his bed needs help and/or to be put
away.
>
> I can think of tons of fathers, and mothers, you just convicted for
> being normal. Your statement was to broad and generalized not to
catch
> normal parents in the web.

Now don't get all technical on me - you know what I meant. Let's
rephrase: Any grown man who has pre-teens or older (up until the age
of consent) sleeping with him in his bed needs help and/or to be put
away. And that includes parents.

I just saw one of those 'Nanny 911' episodes where the mother had to
sleep with all her kids every night, and the oldest was about 6 or 7.
That's just sick.

>>> Perhaps, because I have been directly involved in the law and have
>>> seen that it, more often than not, actually works the way it
should,
>>I
>>> am far less cynical. Note that I did not say it works right every
>>> time. I had cases go bad when they looked air tight. It happens.
>>Often
>>> it was out of my hands what took place in the offices upstairs, or
>>> what verdict a jury reaches. I, and my people, did our part of the
>>> legal system. We investigated and reported. We aren't the judge
and
>>> jury.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:34:33 GMT, Joe >
>>wrote:
>>>
>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address
>

Spike wrote:
> Hank > wrote:

> You seem to be one of those who blames the US for the
> terrorist attack on 9/11, and ignores the idea that that was an
> immoral act of terror even according to the Koran and the majority of
> Muslims.

The Bush regime was certainly grossly negligent in
ignoring all the urgent warnings of an eminent attack,
thus paving the way for the attacks of 9-11, but the blame
for that goes to Bush and his incompetent and criminal
regime, not the U.S..

> So, I have responded to the first couple of entries in
> order to reveal your bias.

>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

>> doing this to innocent children in violation of
>> international law is immoral by anyone's definition

> I see nothing which PROVES when and how this happened.

Robert Fisk is a globally respected and award winning
journalist. He's no "Jeff Gannon". Also, no one disputes
that Bush's illegal and immoral terror attack on the
innocent People of Iraq killed tens of thousands of
innocent civilians. The proof is everywhere except the
U.S. corporate owned and censored mainstream media.

> Would you deny that anyone would have reason to make the
> US look bad to the people of the Middle East in particular,
> and the world in general. Would you also deny that these
> photos might have been taken at any time, in any place in
> the Middle East.

If the photos weren't published by one of the world's most
respected and credible award winning journalists, and hundreds
of other reputable sources hadn't also witnessed this obscene
carnage, you might have a point. It seems quite far fetched to
think that no one would be killed when hundreds of tons of high
explosives are dropped in densely populated areas.

>> This explains why Bush's terror attack on the People of
>>Iraq was illegal.

> Sorry. Dead bodies DO NOT PROVE your position.

You missed the link that my comment referred to. Here
it is again:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm

"Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan
by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared
explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war
on Iraq was illegal."

> You are not a witness (neither am I).

Are you saying that no bombs were dropped in Iraq, and
no innocent people were killed because you weren't there
to see it? That seems incredibly strange. Why not take
the word of the many credible people who DID see it,
interviewed victims, and have photo evidence? The Bush
regime has done all it can to censor the media in Iraq
and prevent the truth from being exposed, and of course,
it has told endless blatant lies from day one. No one with
an open mind believes their endless lies at this point.

> Yet you are willing to accept anything you read or hear as
> long as it supports your position.

I'm willing to believe quality reporting done by
award winning journalists. It took them decades to
establish their credibility, their careers depend on
it, they have no incentive to lie, and no one (of
significance) is disputing their claims.

> You "may" be right about all this in the final analysis,
> however, at present, nothing you have offered is proof
> of anything you claim, in part because it is rife with bias.

It's biased towards truth and facts, while the Bush regime
has been proven to be biased toward death, destruction, war
crimes, torture, and lies.

-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

> Hank wrote:
WindsorFox[SS] wrote:

>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

> those pictures are from a suicide bomb attack.

Yeah, and Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs and is about
to nuke the United States. And Robert Fisk is really
bu$h's favorite "journalist, the homophobic gay whore,
"Jeff Gannon".
You appear to be a gullible, brainwashed, terrorism
supporting kook....

-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

>
>Now don't get all technical on me - you know what I meant. Let's
>rephrase: Any grown man who has pre-teens or older (up until the age
>of consent) sleeping with him in his bed needs help and/or to be put
>away. And that includes parents.

Now that I can agree with : ) I knew what you meant. The point was not
to get techie on you, but to point out how thin the line can be
between a good and enforceable law, and a lame one.
>
>I just saw one of those 'Nanny 911' episodes where the mother had to
>sleep with all her kids every night, and the oldest was about 6 or 7.
>That's just sick.

I am not familiar with the show of which you speak. Some of the
"homes" I have been in, with kids sleeping anywhere they can find a
space, dog feces all over the floor, no food in the refer, were pretty
bad. On the other hand, you can walk into an extremely clean and neat
apartment (when the neighbors live in rat holes) and all the kids are
sleeping in the bed, and the mom or dad is too and that's the only
piece of furniture in the place except the color TV sitting on the
floor. Even been to places where the slept in shifts in the same bed.
Now, you can say that any many who has kids sleeping in the same bed
is sick, but I can tell you such is not always the case. When you get
down into the lowest economic levels it's a whole different world. It
does not mean anything bad is going on.

Waco Jacko is a whole different critter. He can afford furnishings for
everyone.

But, again, you have to be very careful how you word something. A
blanket statement like yours about Jacko written into law, would
result in a lot of kids being forced into foster care, family broken
apart, parents and children victimized for being the best parents they
can be.
>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:02:23 -0400, Hank >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Hank > wrote:
>
>> You seem to be one of those who blames the US for the
>> terrorist attack on 9/11, and ignores the idea that that was an
>> immoral act of terror even according to the Koran and the majority of
>> Muslims.
>
> The Bush regime was certainly grossly negligent in
>ignoring all the urgent warnings of an eminent attack,
>thus paving the way for the attacks of 9-11, but the blame
>for that goes to Bush and his incompetent and criminal
>regime, not the U.S..

And just how would you have handled it when the "threat" was
unspecified as to target, by who, where, when, etc. Close down the
entire country for lord knows how long? Could you have predicted the
use of airliners? And if some intelligence agency said that was how it
would go down, would you have even believed it? Would another
President have made different choices, or should we armchair
quarterback?

Since it didn't happen on anyone else's watch, we will never know how
another President may have reacted. To say otherwise is totally
idiotic. Nobody can possibly know that.

And if we went to a heightened security level for a possible terrorist
attack which did not come, what would you be saying? That the
President wasted out time and money on a wild goose chase? For that
matter, how many times could the government cry "wolf!" before the
public began to ignore the warnings? Heck, the agencies pay attention
today, but the public hardly does.

Even if the President, no matter who was in office, reacted in the way
"you" believe he should have, have you considered what it takes to
mobilize the bureaucracy to meet the threat? Think BEFORE 9/11, not
since. Yet, even now, it's not instantaneous.

No matter who was President at the time, Republican or Democrat, Bush
or Kerry, the one in office would be blamed no matter what actions
were taken, good or bad, right or wrong. That's a lot of
responsibility to shoulder for someone who makes less than a
basketball player... less than most major CEOs even. Heck, you have
kids on bicycles today making darn near what the president makes. (ok
maybe that's an exaggeration... but not that big a one...).


>
>> So, I have responded to the first couple of entries in
>> order to reveal your bias.
>
>>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
>>> doing this to innocent children in violation of
>>> international law is immoral by anyone's definition
>
>> I see nothing which PROVES when and how this happened.
>
> Robert Fisk is a globally respected and award winning
>journalist. He's no "Jeff Gannon". Also, no one disputes
>that Bush's illegal and immoral terror attack on the
>innocent People of Iraq killed tens of thousands of
>innocent civilians. The proof is everywhere except the
>U.S. corporate owned and censored mainstream media.
>
>> Would you deny that anyone would have reason to make the
>> US look bad to the people of the Middle East in particular,
>> and the world in general. Would you also deny that these
>> photos might have been taken at any time, in any place in
>> the Middle East.
>
> If the photos weren't published by one of the world's most
>respected and credible award winning journalists, and hundreds
>of other reputable sources hadn't also witnessed this obscene
>carnage, you might have a point. It seems quite far fetched to
>think that no one would be killed when hundreds of tons of high
>explosives are dropped in densely populated areas.
>
>>> This explains why Bush's terror attack on the People of
>>>Iraq was illegal.
>
>> Sorry. Dead bodies DO NOT PROVE your position.
>
> You missed the link that my comment referred to. Here
>it is again:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm
>
> "Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
>Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan
>by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
>
>"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared
>explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war
>on Iraq was illegal."
>
>> You are not a witness (neither am I).
>
> Are you saying that no bombs were dropped in Iraq, and
>no innocent people were killed because you weren't there
>to see it? That seems incredibly strange. Why not take
>the word of the many credible people who DID see it,
>interviewed victims, and have photo evidence? The Bush
>regime has done all it can to censor the media in Iraq
>and prevent the truth from being exposed, and of course,
>it has told endless blatant lies from day one. No one with
>an open mind believes their endless lies at this point.
>
>> Yet you are willing to accept anything you read or hear as
>> long as it supports your position.
>
> I'm willing to believe quality reporting done by
>award winning journalists. It took them decades to
>establish their credibility, their careers depend on
>it, they have no incentive to lie, and no one (of
>significance) is disputing their claims.
>
>> You "may" be right about all this in the final analysis,
>> however, at present, nothing you have offered is proof
>> of anything you claim, in part because it is rife with bias.
>
> It's biased towards truth and facts, while the Bush regime
>has been proven to be biased toward death, destruction, war
>crimes, torture, and lies.
>
>-
>
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/
> http://www.truthout.org/
> http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
> http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
> http://counterpunch.org/
> http://responsiblewealth.org/
> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html
>
> In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
>directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
>involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
>McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
>Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
>and "It's not true."
> Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.
>
> "We argued, as did the security services in this country,
> that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
> threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
> have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
> warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05
>
> "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
> there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
> take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
> who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
> warfare or morality."
> -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
> "Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
> to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
> a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
> -Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
> torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm
>
> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
> that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
>
> "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
> he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
> -- George W. Bush
>
> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
> will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
> Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
> -- Adolf Hitler
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
> not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."
> -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
>
> Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
> friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:04:39 -0400, Hank >
wrote:

> > Hank wrote:
>WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>
>>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
>> those pictures are from a suicide bomb attack.
>
> Yeah, and Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs and is about
>to nuke the United States. And Robert Fisk is really
>bu$h's favorite "journalist, the homophobic gay whore,
>"Jeff Gannon".
> You appear to be a gullible, brainwashed, terrorism
>supporting kook....
>
>-
>
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/
> http://www.truthout.org/
> http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
> http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
> http://counterpunch.org/
> http://responsiblewealth.org/
> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html
>


I've read through the items you have quoted and they are so full of
holes it's a wonder anyone would listen to you. You quote a third
party telling a lie and attribute it to Bush. You quote Bush's
description of the terrorists and you attribute it to describing his
own acts. The list goes on.
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address