Obamaite cali primitive obligingly speaks on O.J. Simpson evidence

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4184381

Hmmm.

This bonfire's obviously related to one started by the operating one the other day, about O.J. Simpson.

cali  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Tue Oct-07-08 10:14 AM
Original message

My obligatory post on OJ Simpson's guilt in the murder of his wife: DNA evidence proved it.
   
Because so many DUers seem to think there was reasonable doubt, I want to remind them that there was a shitload of DNA evidence linking him to the crime. Nicole's blood on one his socks, his blood at the scene.
I suppose you could argue that all this evidence was planted, but ignoring the mass of DNA evidence is just bizarre.

Here, check out the thousands of links to the DNA evidence

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oj+simpson+dna+evi...

It turned into a real barn-burner, like the other bonfire.

Pigwidgeon  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Tue Oct-07-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message

1. Google "proves" Creationism the same way   
   
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oj+simpson+dna+evi... ..... 55,000 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scientific+creatio... ......... 300,000 hits.

Bad cases make bad law -- and worse public outrage.

cali  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Tue Oct-07-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. oh for pity's sake. No, google does not prove creationism in the same way
   
you're every bit as likely to see scientific articles debunking creationism when you google it, as to see articles (non-scientific) defending it.

Now just for laughs, pig, tell me how the masses of DNA evidence linking OJ to the murder, aren't real science.

And then almost immediately, an argument from the operating one's bonfire flares up:

wtmusic  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #21

30. A finding of "not guilty" is exactly the same as being found "innocent"
   
There are only two possibilities on each charge.

gollygee  (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #30

38. The two possibilities are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty"
   
"Innocent" isn't an option and isn't the same as "Not Guilty". The burden is on the prosecution to find the defendant guilty, and if they can't prove guilt the defendant is found not guilty. That means the evidence wasn't available, either because the person was innocent or simply because there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt.

wtmusic  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #38

40. You are wrong.
   
A finding of "not-guilty" is logically and legally equivalent to a finding of innocence (though not used in court, the press will commonly refer to such a finding as the defendant being found innocent).

Innocent until proven guilty.

It just goes on and on and on; and one is distressed by the obvious silence of Doug's ex-wife, Joanne98, the1inone, and other primitive apologists for criminals, not speaking their piece about one of their heroes.

One wonders what's up with that.

[GOBUCKS]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of O.J. defenders are also MIHOPpers.

The over/under would have to be somewhere in the 90% range.

[USA4ME]

Oh please.  Does anyone really want to try to convice any of us that the Obamite cali primitive wasn't one of the whackos who believed that Mark Fuhrman was a racist who framed OJ?

.

[franksolich]

Oh please.  Does anyone really want to try to convice any of us that the Obamite cali primitive wasn't one of the whackos who believed that Mark Fuhrman was a racist who framed OJ?

I kind of wondered that myself.

Perhaps the Obamaite cali primitive's trying to rehabilitate herself, after all the Hate she spewed out against supporters of the worthier candidate for the Democrat nomination for the presidency all year long.

By the way, in case you missed it, sir, there was a comment by the Obamaite cali primitive that she used to live with a black guy during the 1970s; I think it was yesterday.

This is the same Obamaite cali primitive who, circa a year and a half ago, when discussing natural catastrophes in southern California with another primitive, told the other primitive she didn't want "these people" moving into Vermont.

The subject was limited to people of the inner city, so it's obvious who "these people" were.

The primitives, especially the Obamaite primitives, have some really weird contradictions in themselves.