Thoughts from Hedgy
- Thread starter Trampled Underfoot
- Start date
I am harmless, I only been in 1 fist fight in 37 years and that was 5th grade, and we are friends on facebook now :shrug: I promise to be much nicer and not post any controversy so as not to upset anyone here since you all have such thin skin, I am truly sorry for my actions
Okay let me get this straight, so everyone is just correcting Hedge on his posts? You are telling me that you get upset because he posts anti-gay and racist statements and you guys are disgusted by his complete lack of social tolerance?
See, that is where I am confused. So you guys aren't racist or bigoted in any way, except against those that don't have the same moral compass or social correctness as yourself. I always thought that to accept all races and types means exactly that. It is just as racist to call someone a cracker or a retard or fucktard or all the other shit I read in the posts that you guys bully him on. You guys are no more socially correct than he is, you don't get to pick who gets to stay on the island boys. I don't think they are going to start printing stamps with your likeness on it just because you open the door for a little old black lady, trust me. When are you all going to start writing letters to Michael Richards, or Martin Lawrence? They are racists also, so if you are going to have a cause......or does everyone have to focus all the anger and namecalling on this one racist and then you guys will move on to rid the world of Raymond and Beantown Jim, because we all know that profiling is wrong and we should rid the world of everyone that calls someone a faggot. I got news for you, people do not change, they suppress. Let a serial killer loose in your neighborhood and tell me more about how people change. I am sure Mike Vick would NEVER go to a dog fight again if assured there was no way to ever get caught again. I am also sure that Raymond Barry will never hit the pipe again.
I just don't get how a personal opinion becomes law? I think O.J. was innocent yet I know none of you have a problem calling him a murderer and rejoicing when he got a ridiculously inflated sentence for his other charges. The fact of the matter is that you can't have it both ways. You guys want to be the ones at the leading edge of social awareness? Work on the homeless problem, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't give you the right to constantly badger the fucking rube. Tolerance is tolerance and it doesn't come in designer bags.
See, that is where I am confused. So you guys aren't racist or bigoted in any way, except against those that don't have the same moral compass or social correctness as yourself. I always thought that to accept all races and types means exactly that. It is just as racist to call someone a cracker or a retard or fucktard or all the other shit I read in the posts that you guys bully him on. You guys are no more socially correct than he is, you don't get to pick who gets to stay on the island boys. I don't think they are going to start printing stamps with your likeness on it just because you open the door for a little old black lady, trust me. When are you all going to start writing letters to Michael Richards, or Martin Lawrence? They are racists also, so if you are going to have a cause......or does everyone have to focus all the anger and namecalling on this one racist and then you guys will move on to rid the world of Raymond and Beantown Jim, because we all know that profiling is wrong and we should rid the world of everyone that calls someone a faggot. I got news for you, people do not change, they suppress. Let a serial killer loose in your neighborhood and tell me more about how people change. I am sure Mike Vick would NEVER go to a dog fight again if assured there was no way to ever get caught again. I am also sure that Raymond Barry will never hit the pipe again.
I just don't get how a personal opinion becomes law? I think O.J. was innocent yet I know none of you have a problem calling him a murderer and rejoicing when he got a ridiculously inflated sentence for his other charges. The fact of the matter is that you can't have it both ways. You guys want to be the ones at the leading edge of social awareness? Work on the homeless problem, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't give you the right to constantly badger the fucking rube. Tolerance is tolerance and it doesn't come in designer bags.
<a href="http://s1153.beta.photobucket.com/user/Jon_Kneifl/media/juice_zps869510a6.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p510/Jon_Kneifl/juice_zps869510a6.png" border="0" alt=" photo juice_zps869510a6.png"/></a>
Don't squeeze the Juice!
:142smilie :mj07: :142smilie
kneifl
He was found innocent correct? If you read over all the evidence and transcripts you would find that he was properly acquitted.
Dude, when a police officer takes a vial of a held suspect's blood from the sub basement, past the evidence room, literally walked right by it with the suspect's evidence in his hand, went to his fourth floor office and then both crime scenes. Yes, both crime scenes and then only a short 8 hours later finally made it back to the station where the unrefridgerated blood was then booked into evidence. Guess what happened the very next day and more than three weeks after both crime scenes were cleaned and closed, go ahead, guess. That very same "forgetful" cop and his partner just happened to be driving by the crime scene and lo and behold, guess what they found. The only blood that could be linked to your favorite running back growing up right there on the back gate. Right in plain view. Now you may ask yourself, how did that blood not get washed away in the 6 rainstorms that occurred over that period of time, what's more how did more than 12 crime scene analysts on 5 concurrent days all miss that drop of blood right there on the center of the gate? What's more, why is it that Det. VanAtter checked 6.8 mls of blood into evidence when the sitting physician testified under oath in a video deposition that he took 8 mls of blood and handed all 8 to Van Atter? Where did that blood go? What's more did you know "all that blood evidence" that they had all over OJ's Bronco and on the fence. Less than one tenth of one drop of blood. Maybe that kind of blatant disregard for proper police work is enough for you to say you have "zero doubt" that he is guilty but don't feel bad. Most of the people that got all their information from the occasional news show think the same way. Maybe establishing the time of death by what time the neighbors dog was barking and the fact that those very neighbors, a husband and wife by the way, both testified to a different time by more than fifteen minutes is enough to convict for you. I kind of like the prosecution to prove their case prior to putting someone away for their entire life. I honestly thought they would convict him as soon as Newsweek and Time put the doctored photo of him on their cover in order to make him look more sinister, but don't worry, if it's on the news......it's true, because media or policemen would never lie about anything. Planting evidence and doctoring pictures isn't lying at all.
Hope that helps,
FDC
nope didnt help :mj07:
no doubt the police totally botched the case for the prosecution and put a racist on the stand as the primary witness but CMON MAN
nice argument tho ... you missed your calling in not being a defense lawyer :0074
:mj07:
no doubt the police totally botched the case for the prosecution and put a racist on the stand as the primary witness but CMON MAN
nice argument tho ... you missed your calling in not being a defense lawyer :0074
:mj07:
Dude,
If you were sitting on a jury in a capital murder case for your nephew and any ONE of those incidents that I just mentioned, you would still convict? No murder weapon, no blood evidence that wasn't tampered with? Remember the blood on the sock that the defense team proved beyond any doubt that there was no foot in the sock when the blood got on the sock? Remember the world's leading forensic criminologist testified to identifiable footprints being overlooked.
The worst is the fact that the glove that was found at the murder scene was booked into evidence and it was testified to by three police officers that the glove was dry and crusty and yet the glove that Furhman "found" at OJ's more than 5-6 hours after the dog barked was "wet, soaked and sticky" according to the same three officers. So does blood dry at a fixed rate of evaporation or does it depend on if it is on Bundy street or in a backyard?
There is so much more man. They didn't even secure the crime scene until the next day. The arriving officer let the water out of the tub but didn't check to see if the water was warm, he then turned off the stereo and didn't check to see if it was a cd or cassette or the tuner that was playing. He didn't check the consistence of the ice cream on the railing, no, he threw in the trash and it was never collected. This could very well have held dna evidence but a cop threw evidence away? Then Furhman showed up at the scene after he was told by his superior NOT TO, and promptly took the sheet off of the victim's bed and covered the body thereby damaging any dna evidence, then proceeds to pick up the victims home phone instead of using the radio in his hand, or the arriving officers radio attached to his uniform to call, not 911, no that would be sensible, he called his ex-partner in a completely different precinct to report a murder that was out of his district. The hat they found, had more than 126 human hairs found in it and not a fucking one could be linked to OJ. I could go on and on. The fact is, when the officer that found ALL the major evidence goes on the stand and perjures himself after being ordered not to go to the crime scene in the first place, that is reasonable doubt all day long. I think C'MON MAN certainly applies, but not to me. I don't let mainstream media make up my mind for me and not saying anyone here does but I do believe that the media definitely publicly convicted him long before his trial started.
Terrible jury selection if the uncle of the suspect is sitting in the jury box.
so just his intolerance bothers you then, not others?
Aren't you being intolerant about it? Does he not have the same civil liberties and rights as you? Is he not allowed to express his opinion if it doesn't agree with yours? That is all I am saying. You don't have to like it but not liking the way someone talks doesn't give you "more rights" and it certainly doesn't make you correct in publicly chastising him. Your moral make up doesn't have to match his. You know I dig the hell out of you bro, but you are dead wrong here. You aren't judge, jury, or executioner of the social compass.
The point is that you don't have to agree with him and you can tell him so if you want but calling him a piece of shit or whatever all the time is fucked up. Leave the fucking guy be. I have seen the post "so we should just let bigotry or racism go unchecked?" or something of that nature. Yes, you should. He is posting on a fucking web bulletin board for fucks sake, he didn't hang a guy from a tree. He is allowed to not like black people, fuck most white people don't like black people. They just lie about it and say they have lots of black friends but they still look from side to side before they spit out the word nigger. If you have lots of black friends, real friends, then you wouldn't have to look around the room to say something that my friends say every day. Black and white alike. Chappelle says it all the time and white people all laugh yet are scared to death to say it because they don't know how their "black friends" will react. I know how my friends are going to react to anything I say and it never occurs to me to watch what I say because their is no malice in anything I say. So I guess the question is simple, who died and made you guys boss. Yes, you should leave people to enjoy their own lives and opinions. Like Trampled Underfoot so eloquently stated,
To each their own, and he is absolutely correct. Too bad he doesn't believe it for a second.
To my point, I have not thought for one second that this conversation would in any way detract from our friendship as I am sure you will know that people can disagree on things and still be friends and nice to each other.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Cris - as to your other post (quoting all this stuff is making this ridiculously long thread even longer), yes I'm guilty of being intolerant of the intolerant schmuck. I explained my position in my other post and I stand by it. If I?m viewed as a troll or intolerant myself because of my actions, I am more than fine by it.
Taking the position doesn't make you a troll. I think that your/my rights as an individual end where another individual's rights begin. He has a right to be an asshole and you have a right to not like it, but chastising him for it all the time is no different than trying to force religion on somebody that doesn't believe in it.
We are good though brother. Cheers
Shawn,
Thanks for the input.
Hope that helps,
FDC
