If you have been Kenneth Layed, could you literally charge him with rape?

If the suicide bombers that have been promised 72 virgins in the afterlife truely value virgins above all else, what will they do for the rest of eternity begining on day 73?

If George W. Bush can choke on something as simple as a pretzel, would Monica Lewinsky make a better president?

Does Mike Tyson REALLY need to be hit in the head any more than he has been already?

I was wondering about the 72 virgins. Is there anything in the contract that says what the virgins look like or how old they are? I mean..I don't want to be superficial here, but the whole virgin thing is a little superficial anyway. So what I'm saying is, can some of the virgins be middle aged women with large warts? I'd want to know.

Sorry Pat but after the age of sixteen, there does seem to be a short list of virgins to pick from.

Larry, I have seen no indication that Monica could swallow anything larger then a pretzel, in fact it was what she didn't swallow that got Bill in so much trouble.

"The
Bohemian Grove is an American version of race, gender and class elitism. It is
the human process of building insider ties, consensual understandings, and
lasting connections in the service of class solidarity. Ties reinforced
at the Grove manifest themselves in global trade meetings, party politics,
campaign financing, and top-down democracy. In a sense, they live in a
self-made Bastille surrounded by power, prestige and privilege, and
united in their fear of grassroots democracy," (from one of several sites on the topic of the club)

Geo. W. Bush and his daddy both belong to this group, wow, what a history it has and what they must do at this secret meeting place???? Who knew about this group? I just heard about it because a fellow broke into the site intent on stopping child abuse and he thought they just might be killing people there as part of the some rite of passage.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Nathen on Jan 24, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

Hey, Bumper, you okay? Apparently the Bohemian Grove is just about in your backyard--near Monte Rio, near the Russian River. Hope it wasn't you breaking in!!!

4) nope, Tyson's all set, got a cerebral omlette, going there

3) Monica's resting, getting ready to campaagin, for Hillary, in 2004

2) I'll bet those 72 virgins will be impressed, with the bodies, of post-kaboom suicide bombers! real sexy look, there...

1) WE need a new section, at Guantanamo, holding facility, for corporate terrorists, Layed gets the penthouse cage.....

heehee, nope, Ceashel, t'wern't me, Bohemian Grove protests have become a "cottage industry" in the Russian River area, of Sonoma County, the "Grove" is about 45 mins, south of me. The "commando" is very nutsy person, his interviews, in local paper are amazing!

I watched "60 Minutes" this past sunday. The Harvard Law Professor and famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz (sp?) was interviewed. He explained that governments around the world, including our own, have used and are currently using torture as a means to get information from prisoners. He also took the position that he thinks that it's justified to do so in some circumstances, such as if a captured terrorist knows where a ticking bomb was about to kill innocent people.
This is a tough question. Every tad of moral fiber in my being says that torture is wrong....period. However, if some guy had my daughter buried somewhere with a 2 hour supply of oxygen left, I have a feeling that I would cave in to my more primal side and make the bastard talk with whatever means I had.
I think one of the worst things that terrorists have done to us, is to make debates about such things needed.
As a side note, years ago I thought of Alan Dershowitz as one of the most intellectual and fair minded of legal minds in the public eye. My opinion of him has been changed somewhat toward the downside over the years after his involvment in the O.J. case, and after coming to the understanding that he is a high priced salesman or gun for hire. I am glad he has not been seen doing commercials on tv like I have seen Johnny Cochoran doing recently, where Johnny plays with rhyme as in the famous"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" thing for the O.J. case.
The guy stills has a sharp intellect, and can bring up and make good points of course, I just lost some respect for him on another level.

Larry altho I respect your new opinion of Alan D.. The fact of his representing O.J. is high profile clients, bring in the bucks. Simple as that! On a smaller scale public defenders, get criminals 'sweet' plea bargains...Certainly added up, it doesn't compare to murder, but ya get my drift!? Even tho repeat offenders, have been known to off someone, or go on to thier next crime..(hence giving plea bargaining a bad name)...

*I saw that clip on torture, and Alan gave a good arguement..I liked the old Veteran, who admitted torturing in past conflicts...He boldly stated, given the chance, he'd do it all over again...

**IT is a wake up call, reminding us all, we're living in a differant world. One where, everybody is on the front line.

***A yr. ago, I'd of told you he was going senile....<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/wink.gif" width=15 height=15>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrown:

Larry altho I respect your new opinion of Alan D.. The fact of his representing O.J. is high profile clients, bring in the bucks. Simple as that!

QUOTE]

If, in his heart of hearts Alan really and honestly thought O.J. was innocent, then and ONLY then would I respect his taking the case. If he took large sums of money to help a high profile rich guy get away with murder,and he knew it,then he is as guilty as the guy with the knife. I suspect the later, although I, and most thinking people might be 99% sure of this, we will never know for sure. This is why I have lost a great deal of respect for the man.
To go a step further, I understand and to some degree respect the arguement that our system is designed to err on the side of protecting the innocent before condemming the guilty, and I understand that good defense lawyers are part of our system of checks and balances as it were....BUT, that does not excuse an ambulance chaser that knowingly defends the guilty in a murder case.

Shapearo, was about the ONLY lawyer that walked away from that case, with grace. (so long I forgot his first name). Ultimately 12 jurors made the call...

*If only the D.A. had Berry Sheck on 'thier' side...but we wouldn't want to change history. O.J. being ostrasized is probably the worst punishment, he could get...

**BESIDES: I think deep down, we all know, in the end, we answer to a bigger judge...And I dought that this guy plays favorites....<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/eek.gif" width=15 height=15>

*for the record, I sorta know where your coming from Larry...In a non-perfect world, things will go amuck...The legal system is just a small example..But a good one. None-the-less!!

Someone has to defend the guilty..really. It's the way our system works. I don't know what Dershowitz thought but a lawyer is supposed to advocate for his client. If lawyers only defended people who they believed were innocent the whole system would completely grind to a halt because 90% of the people accused of crimes wouldn't have counsel, to which they're legally entitled. Same with plea bargaining.

Even if the defendant is guilty and his/her lawyer knows it, the lawyer should still do as much as possible in defense of the client. That doesn't mean getting the guilty off as if he or she were innocent though, and I think that's a point that is confused too often in courts these days. Defense isn't supposed to be a the same as aquittal. It's merely supposed to allow all the sides of the story to be presented, and to ensure fair treatment of the defendant.

Another thing that bugs the heck out of me about the way things are working these days is the iron-clad assumption that the truth is always going to be somewhere in the middle of the two sides. It's quite possible that one side is telling bald faced lies from start to finish, while the other side may be telling the truth as accutately as they possibly can. In fact, given the nature of some situations, that's the likeliest scenario. IMO, of course.

I didn't know whether to put this in "tickle your funnybone" or "disjointed" or to start a new thread about things that make you want to <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/puke.gif" width=45 height=15>, or what. This thread looked appropriate, too, so here it is. This is the headline; check out the article: Bush to take populist theme on the road

Thanks, Cea. He's so good at public speaking, too. Hope someone keeps count--maybe we need a "Bush-paux" thread.