Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (65139)	1/22/2000 12:25:00 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Censorship without censors, correct speak ad nauseam. There is a book called "Philosophy, Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand that puts her fiction to shame. It is a collection of short essays. I was catching a flight back here a few months ago and I related something an old black man had said that fought in WW II. Someone asked him if he was worried about that bullet that had his name on it, and he said "no, but I was worried about the bullet that said to whom it may concern". A woman sitting behind gushed us "Oh my God, that is the most racist thing I have ever heard". People today are trained to react like toy poodles with a bad case of fleas. A generation of over-sensitive little people that don't know what they think but are pretty sure how they feel. average joe

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (65139)	1/22/2000 4:56:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well. Bragging about routine circumvention of our rule of law to support the extermination of groups of people, is certainly nothing I could overlook in judging candidates for my esteem. Indeed it would be uppermost in my mind as I commenced rejecting them. There is no honour to be found in celebrating the corruption of our law, and when one of our law enforcement officers celebrates this, then it becomes a travesty even if said corruption did not in fact occur. Some dang hero. There are far more nobler men from which to choose. But Neocon tells me Furman was perhaps saying all these things merely as an explanation of how other officers justify routinely planting evidence against blacks. If this is true, then I can understand how one might think Furman ill-used. He nevertheless should not have taken the Fifth, but faced down the defense as steadfastly as he had done earlier. His miserable retreat almost certainly made it appear he had something to hide, in the same way Clinton's folk appeared to have something to hide when they were taken to the bench. Now likely you would claim it does not matter in any event, and that folk simply overreacted. I say this since you were apparently unaware of the point Neocon has now made, and instead simply embraced your "hero" by dismissing what you obviously thought were harmless statements. But consider the fact that many of the boys Furman was alleged to have represented think that Catholics also should be exterminated. Most humans long for a Utopia of some sort, and so no doubt after exterminating all the niggers they would eventually begin to oppress the Rock-Worshippers, perhaps after taking a brief respite from the slaughter of the slant-eyes, wet-backs, sand-niggers and hymies. You know, the quest for a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America. How would you think of Furman had he bragged about routinely planting evidence against "faggish Romanist priests" and how doing so is good since the country would be better off were all the "Statue worshipping, bead-rubbing blood-drinking papists" exterminated anyway? I hardly think you would then champion this wonderful "hero." If you be reasonable, you would look upon Furman with great suspicion and animosity (and obviously so would I). Well then now let us furthermore say this same Furman happened upon a circumstance wherein he by stealth entered the premises of an esteemed Roman Catholic priest (even while the priest was alleged not to be under suspicion), and it is eventually revealed that evidence was found implicating this priest of child molestation. Surely you would at least have an intense suspicion of Mr. Furman, even while perhaps suspecting the priest. If so, then there sir is your reasonable doubt, and there also is a fine reason to send this Furman out of town like the dog he would surely be. Merely because he would be an underdog would be no good reason to think him a "hero." *** I had actually thought Furman a racist because I thought I had heard quite a good deal of his comments on tape. Apparently the tape did not present the comments in their original context. So then I will have to revoke my opinion of him. Even so, if Neocon is correct I must admit that what he claims presents some serious and interesting dynamics that go far to explain how OJ was allowed to escape justice. As our "convicted criminal" essentially said, the fact or perception that officers routinely plant evidence against minorities, juxtaposed with Furman on tape using the word "nigger" in what appeared a racist soliloquy, this, after having claimed in court never to have used the word "nigger," simply allowed the defense to preach to the choir. The circumstances are apparently more complex than I had earlier thought, and though I yet think OJ guilty of murder (who murdered those folk?), I have for some time been gradually counting myself amongst those who our "criminal" predicted would reevaluate their positions on the verdict. It is clear to me the prosecution and the LAPD failed.