I never believed OJ was innocent. It was obvious that the prosecution fumbled the case by allowing Furhman to present some of the best evidence they had and then see him caught lying on the stand simply by quoting his own previous sworn statements.
Not a minute or penny more!
- Thread starter MicPaPa
- Start date
I never believed OJ was innocent. It was obvious that the prosecution fumbled the case by allowing Furhman to present some of the best evidence they had and then see him caught lying on the stand simply by quoting his own previous sworn statements.
Who told you that?
MicPaPa
GOLD
Never heard of the Shaver case...I'll give it a look later.
First off milking the system seems to happen at all govt positions. Second their worker’s compensation claims aren’t being milked. Their jobs are physically more difficult than my job and every other job at the mfg plant I work at. My wife deals with hundreds of cases a year for the last 25 years. Third, I’d still like to see the Anthem played even if people take a knee, and I have a better understanding of why they are doing it.
Lastly too many people here seem to choose one side or the other. How about we don’t take the extremes on everything. You can support cops, the National Anthem, kneeling and BLM.
MicPaPa
GOLD
Michigan is open carry...what laws were broken?
MicPaPa
GOLD
No one, I wrote it.
Here we go again. Hinkle the homophobe doesn’t play on the national team because she is a fringe player who isn’t good enough. She had her chances, including one call up even after her hateful, bigoty 700 Club stunt, and has proven what everyone already knew. She wasn’t good enough to make 1st or 2nd team All American in college. She hasn’t been good enough to make 1st or 2nd team all-NWSL. She’s the 3rd best defender on her own team, and even that’s being generous. That said, I’d be perfectly fine if US Soccer kicked her homophobic ass to the curb because she’s a POS. Pretty soon we’ll be free of the bigots AND Rapinoe will get to kneel if she wants.
If you want to have freedom of speech for those who agree with you, then you have to grant freedom of speech to those who disagree with you.
So Hinkle and her homophobic friends are free to say what they like. You and I are free to disagree with them. That’s America.
️
Is there any room left in America for reason? The issue with Kapernick's protest was never about the substance of his protest (I certainly agree that people should be policed based on their conduct and not their skin color - every time regardless of circumstance or environment; that is not too high a standard for agents of government who arrest or kill people in its name). The problem some people had with it was that he elected to do it while co-opting a brand, a venue and a broadcast that did not belong to him. I expect many of the people raising the Kapernick issue about his being denied the ability to express his personal views in the workplace are also the same people who would work to get other people fired from their jobs for expressing their personal views on private social media, in a store, on a sidewalk.... Do people not see the utter hypocrisy in that? When one takes the position that it is OK to express personal views whether at work or on personal time only if that person agrees with the view being expressed, that is totalitarianism. Now the position is not only can one not speak out against an idea or a social position in exercise of the same First Amendment right cheered and demanded by so many protesters of late, but that even silence on the point is evidence of evil or complicity. "Speak out in support of what I think or you are racist, *phobic, evil, unworthy of life...." Do people not see that that only works when the wind is blowing your way? In a manner of speaking, didn't the NFL "cancel" Kapernick? Much like pretty much any company is doing today to anyone who might disagree with prevailing sentiment on the issues of the day? Not OK for the NFL in 2016 but fine for all these other companies on the other side of an issue? Do people really want to live in that America? I don't.
You didn't answer the question.
MicPaPa
GOLD
"Whataboutism" questions are weak to use and not really worth answering. But, because in this case, both protest examples you attempt to play actually occurred and played out, thus they answered themselves to anyone intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.
MicPaPa
GOLD
So you think a mob of black people showing up at state government buildings heavily armed would not have any problems?
You seem like a genuine guy. But be careful not to get manipulated by all the stuff you hear. Don't drink the Koolaid. Be nice to all God's children. White, Black, brown, Orange, etc...
Don't get too excited about man made stuff like the constitution.
This is the same constitution that said women can't vote ! How can some parts of it be so wrong and the rest of it be so sacred like a bible. Don't get played with all the propaganda you hear. Just live your life buddy and stay cool !
I used to think like you but the more I've thought about it lately, the more I realize I am wrong.
The same people who are were in agreement with cancelling Kap is now upset about cancelling people who are coming out as racist or in support of police brutality.
There is a difference in cancelling people that represent discrimination, hatred and anger versus cancelling people because they have a different point of view.
Kneeling before the flag to beg the flag and all who the flag represents to fix the problems of police brutality is promoting kindness and equality for all. Not willing to wear a jersey because it is accepting of people who are of different orientation is promoting hate and discrimination.
In the work place, we don't tolerate all personal opinions or political views. We don't tolerate personal views if it's for hatred and discrimination. We do tolerate any other personal viewpoints or personal opinions though - just not if it's hatred and discrimination.
In my house, we tolerate your opinion as long it's not about hatred and discrimination.
In society, we should be tolerant of all opinions as long as it's not hatred and discrimination. You have the freedom to speak what you want because it's a constitutional right, but it doesn't mean you'll have any friends or business associates until you realize that your hatred and discrimination is harmful to society and society will not accept it.
Throughout history, the only times we have tolerated and accepted opinions that are based on hatred and discrimination, have led to mass killings and wars. Look at the societies in the world today that currently are accepting of hatred and discrimination and think whether you want to live under that type of government and society.
We need to all stand up for justice and equality. Everyone of us is responsible for it and we can't be accepting of it or comfortable with it.
We need to let the police units know that they need to hold bad apples accountable and we in society need to let racists know that we hold them accountable too. We need to hold each other accountable and not act like it's someone else's responsibility.
Just one officer could have pushed Chauvin off and prevented a murder, but no one did. It would have taken one push. Instead, those officers chose to watch a man get murdered right before their eyes and assist with it: one prevented the crowd from coming in, one was on his back, and one was holding his legs.
What type of society have we become that we are not personally accountable for doing the right thing as an individual? When did we think it's ok to be part of a murder because the senior officer said so - sounds like Nazi Germany to you?
So I ask you to hold yourself accountable to prevent hatred and discrimination and I ask you to hold all those around you accountable for it too.
For one day, you and your family might be the one discriminated against and hated.
I know it is clear to you that Hinkles opinions are hateful and Kap took a principled stand.
It is also equally clear to some on the other side that Kap's action was treasonous while Hinkle took a principled stand.
If we claim the right to silence Hinkle, then we grant others the right to silence Kap. I'm not ok with that.
The POS homophobe can espouse all of the hateful beliefs she wants on the 700 Club. I’m just saying that when she does, she gets to be treated like all good employers treat bigots who also aren’t good enough at their jobs. Feel free to go on tv and tell the world how you feel about your gay co-workers. I’d love to see how that goes for you. The 1st Amendment isn’t going to help you.
gotothebushes
GOLD
Sorry Outlaw! That video doesn't show a lot of resisting to the point where a cops knee is in a mans neck for over 8 mins. For example, it took the cops 45 seconds to handcuff him. 45 second unhand cuffed vs 8 mins with a knee to his neck. See the difference!This is the video taken when he's pulled over. This is when he originally resists and the partner has to come over and assist. This isn't peaceful.
New video appears to show police forcing George Floyd out of his car moments before an officer knelt on his neck for 8 minutes
George Floyd was pinned down by an officer on Monday, during which he became unresponsive and later died.www.insider.com
Wahhh!!!! Hinkle the homophobe has no right to a job, and the 1st Amendment does not help her. She can say whatever she wants in her religious house of bigotry. But she doesn’t get to be an awful person in public without consequences.
Anyone who tells you that kneeling before a flag is treasonous is far reaching and I'm not sure what their basis of treason would be from. When has kneeling before anything ever been interpreted as treasonous? Kneeling is an act of begging, mostly begging for mercy.
Hinkle did take a principled stand - a principled stand to exclude non straight members of society. I support her right to take a stand. Not every principled stand will be supported by your workplace, especially if a lot of your potential future co-workers are gay. Will you get hired at a diverse school as a teacher with a Nazi tattoo on your neck? No. You have a right to that tattoo but you aren't going to make everyone uncomfortable at the school. You may be qualified in so many ways, but if you choose to publicly show your discrimination, your potential future employees don't have a choice but to disqualify you as a candidate.
Thoughtful and appreciated. But I don't think is quite so clear cut since what defines hatred and discrimination is, in many instances, subjective rather than objective. For some, saying that a person's sex is based on that person's physiology rather than that person's perception of self (which some would assert is really gender rather than sex) is a matter of biology and not bigotry. JK Rowling's twitter feed indicates that others view that as discrimination and hatred with a vitriol that any reasonable person would see as much more offensive than a nuanced disagreement over terms. Some people agree that there is racism is America but that it is not so institutionally systemic as others might believe. There is legitimate scholarship on both sides. Does one of those positions constitute discrimination and hatred? Does it depend on who you ask? Who gets to decide who else is righteously cancelled? What makes that judgment so pure and so fair?
I agree that people should absolutely be held accountable for what they say and what they think, so I have no issue with Reebok pulling its association with CrossFit based on what its founder said if that is what it wants to do. People can buy Reebok or not based on their support of its culture or rejection of it or just whether they like what it sells. But exercising that choice does not come at the risk of being characterized as racist, evil, bigoted, etc. Are people who question whether public officials who deem mass protests related to race as necessary and protests of health orders that have innumerable significant consequences as based in white supremacy (really?) are acting in good faith based on science and without a political agenda racist? I did that despite agreeing with the need for all sorts of race-related reforms in this country. For many, that makes me a racist bigot. I do not accept that label.
What now constitutes hate speech - or silence as imputed hate speech - is a problem in my view. There is no longer a space for well-meaning disagreement or even electing not to have anything to say. Is it not possible to criticize a protester's tactics without criticizing the message? If I say looting and destroying property and even killing those who try to protect property is wrong does that mean I think it is OK for cops to choke to death a man in handcuffs? Not to me, but for too many people that amounts to discrimination and hate speech or a denial of the substance of the protest. Am I deflecting to say what about Officer Dorn? If some view the hundreds of millions of losses in property damage and theft as something more than a footnote on the events of the last week, is that discrimination and racism? In my house, no. I don't know about your house, but I do know that in many, many houses, it is.
Can a person no longer choose whether to agree or disagree with another person's perspective? I know a white person whose parents used to eat mayonnaise sandwiches and beans bought on grocery store credit when the father was in the military and who has lived a life with serious disabilities resulting from his combat service - does that person (and certainly that person's parents) not have the right to disagree with Kapernick's or Rapinoe's choice of tactics without being a bigot? Do Kapernick and Rapinoe get to decide how other people must interpret their tactics? The anthem wasn't the point of the protest. Ok, I accept that. Does that mean one can't disagree with the election to use the anthem as a tactic to draw attention to the point of the protest? Why else was the anthem used in the protest but to offend people and garner attention? Is everyone required to agree with that choice or is that disagreement discrimination and hatred? On the continuum of how Kapernick could have expressed himself relative to the anthem, is anything too far? Would sitting down have been too far? Comments from Nate Boyer suggest that his advice to Kapernick was that sitting or laying down would be too far. Sitting is offensive but kneeling is not? To whom? Isn't that up to the person who is the recipient of the presentation? Kapernick and Rapinoe did what he did intentionally because he knew it would be controversial and it would upset people. It was a tactic intended to do exactly what it did. The USWNT now wants US Soccer to acknowledge that it was wrong to prohibit kneeling by players representing the United States during the anthem of the United States. No room there to disagree without it being discrimination and hatred?
Where is the check against the clear desire of more than a few to punish those who disagree? That mentality is counterproductive, unnecessary and divisive. Why would people expect others to just capitulate on the altar of a privilege that many do not feel or believe they enjoy? Why does everyone who disagrees just need to listen and be educated? No arrogance there? If people decide that the only way they can be satisfied is to crush, dominate and persecute those who disagree with them, then I fear for the future. That approach will someday lead to scaled violence.