OJ case shows how dumb people can be vis a vis VOTING

R

republicanchick

New member
yeh, those idiot jurors in 1995 listened to Cocharan and all those other educated idiots instead of

again, that pesky little thing called

EVIDENCE

which is relevant vis a vis VOTING in the USA b/c the same way this jury (so called) let a murderer off just b/c said murderer could afford high priced lawyers and used to be a big name in football (which sport the US tends to worship...) is the same way people VOTE

Oh, the Rs don't believe in torturing and murdering the unborn? Well, that's... uh... nice, but I want my $15 / hr (min wage) job. Oh, that raises the cost of doing business for companies and those companies may go out of business or have to lay off 1/2 their workers (resulting in higher unemployment)... Well, that's too bad... at least I myself will keep my job and that's all that matters...

Oh, the Rs are better at running a business and keeping the Debt down? Well... that's nice, but... again, even though I am only 18 and have my whole life b4 me and can switch jobs if I want... I want that higher pay... so some other joe gets edged out of the job market...

got to be all about me, ya know... got2be...

The Rs probably would do a better job... I heard about Reagan and how good things were back then (from my parents) but hey, that was a long time ago... things change... truth changes... everything changes...

to heck with all the evidence... I want that higher wage... live for today, ya know...?



++
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
You are too much fun.

But I can't tell if you're the real deal or some kind of lighthearted parody. :think:

Either way, I will continue to derive entertainment from reading your posts.
 
R

republicanchick

New member
Caledvwlch said:
You are too much fun.

But I can't tell if you're the real deal or some kind of lighthearted parody. :think:

Either way, I will continue to derive entertainment from reading your posts.
Click to expand...

that's wonderful. I am happy you are entertained

I am entertained knowing you do not have an intelligible response
 
Sitamun

Sitamun

New member
Did you watch the trial back in 1995? The DA did a very poor job. I'm Not saying I think OJ is innocent, but simply that the jury really had no other option given how badly the prosecution did their job.
 
R

republicanchick

New member
Sitamun said:
Did you watch the trial back in 1995? The DA did a very poor job. I'm Not saying I think OJ is innocent, but simply that the jury really had no other option given how badly the prosecution did their job.
Click to expand...

that is bogus as all get out

I've read almost all books written on the case. The jury is responsible for letting a killer go... something they would NEVER have done had the killer been POOR

how come no one brings up income inequality in this kind of case?


bleh
 
Sitamun

Sitamun

New member
republicanchick said:
that is bogus as all get out

I've read almost all books written on the case. The jury is responsible for letting a killer go... something they would NEVER have done had the killer been POOR

how come no one brings up income inequality in this kind of case?


bleh
Click to expand...

So I take it you didn't watch the trial. You didn't see what the jury saw as they saw it. Everyone I know who watched the trial thought OJ was guilty, but we all knew he could only be acquitted. Hindsight is always 20/20, and from what I gather you've read books written by the prosecution. OJ had the best lawyers, yes because he was rich. The rich always have the best, the poor generally can't afford their fees. Is it right? No. Some lawyers do do pro bono work but even then it's only a few that are helped. It's the way it is. I honestly think public defenders should be paid better to attract a higher quality of lawyer overall, but that is a different discussion.
 
R

republicanchick

New member
Sitamun said:
So I take it you didn't watch the trial. You didn't see what the jury saw as they saw it. Everyone I know who watched the trial thought OJ was guilty, but we all knew he could only be acquitted. Hindsight is always 20/20, and from what I gather you've read books written by the prosecution. OJ had the best lawyers, yes because he was rich. The rich always have the best, the poor generally can't afford their fees. Is it right? No. Some lawyers do do pro bono work but even then it's only a few that are helped. It's the way it is. I honestly think public defenders should be paid better to attract a higher quality of lawyer overall, but that is a different discussion.
Click to expand...

all this and you don't say what you think as concerns Oj's guilt

fence sitting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top