@DeezyAZ81 I was simply pointing to the fact that OJ was found not guilty in his murder trial and so my factual perspective is that he was exonerated for the crime. So just to be clear on this important matter..... You do believe OJ did NOT commit a double homicide ?? He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, yes. I know and believe he was found not guilty..... knowing and believing he makes human PEZ dispensers as a side hobby is also true... If you sincerely believe that there is a different double murderer responsible for those actions then I have another website you may be interested in.... https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
I have watched a couple of documentaries and read a couple of books on the case and trial (Not OJ's book ha). I believe OJ was there and involved in the murder somehow. I do not think he acted alone though. If you remember the timeline I do not think OJ had enough time to kill them both alone (Goldman was half his age at the time), get rid of clothes and weapons, go home (5-6 minute drive), take a shower, change clothes, and get in his limo for his flight all in 31 minutes without being seen or noticed. I know OJ is a scumbag of a person and domestic abuser, so he was involved for sure in my opinion. I watch a lot of crime series too and the whole cuts on his hand from someone else's fingernails that was mentioned by a forensic expert in the civil trial also does not add up. In nearly 99.9% all fatal stabbings, the perpetrator has cuts on his or her hands from the knife because there is so much blood on the knife that the killer cannot effectively hold onto the knife. However, the gloves (deemed to be planted), nor either of OJ's hands had knife cuts on them. To kill two people with the knife violently with all of that blood on the scene that had to be flying around and for him to not have a single knife cut on his hands is highly unlikely. Forensics in civil trial actually confirmed that the one cut on his knuckle was indeed NOT caused by a knife cut. So this does not add up either. Everyone paints OJ was the sole killer because of the obvious history of abuse and his loose cannon, violent personality. I just do not think he acted alone, although I truly believe he was there and involved. If LAPD had not botched it, I also think it should have been a conviction. Anyway, we can go back and forth on this somewhere else.
It is obviously still a highly controversial trial and event in American history.
@DeezyAZ81 I was simply pointing to the fact that OJ was found not guilty in his murder trial and so my factual perspective is that he was exonerated for the crime. So just to be clear on this important matter..... You do believe OJ did NOT commit a double homicide ?? He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, yes. I know and believe he was found not guilty..... knowing and believing he makes human PEZ dispensers as a side hobby is also true... If you sincerely believe that there is a different double murderer responsible for those actions then I have another website you may be interested in.... https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
I have watched a couple of documentaries and read a couple of books on the case and trial (Not OJ's book ha). I believe OJ was there and involved in the murder somehow. I do not think he acted alone though. If you remember the timeline I do not think OJ had enough time to kill them both alone (Goldman was half his age at the time), get rid of clothes and weapons, go home (5-6 minute drive), take a shower, change clothes, and get in his limo for his flight all in 31 minutes without being seen or noticed. I know OJ is a scumbag of a person and domestic abuser, so he was involved for sure in my opinion. I watch a lot of crime series too and the whole cuts on his hand from someone else's fingernails that was mentioned by a forensic expert in the civil trial also does not add up. In nearly 99.9% all fatal stabbings, the perpetrator has cuts on his or her hands from the knife because there is so much blood on the knife that the killer cannot effectively hold onto the knife. However, the gloves (deemed to be planted), nor either of OJ's hands had knife cuts on them. To kill two people with the knife violently with all of that blood on the scene that had to be flying around and for him to not have a single knife cut on his hands is highly unlikely. Forensics in civil trial actually confirmed that the one cut on his knuckle was indeed NOT caused by a knife cut. So this does not add up either. Everyone paints OJ was the sole killer because of the obvious history of abuse and his loose cannon, violent personality. I just do not think he acted alone, although I truly believe he was there and involved. If LAPD had not botched it, I also think it should have been a conviction. Anyway, we can go back and forth on this somewhere else.
It is obviously still a highly controversial trial and event in American history.
@DeezyAZ81 My whole point was throwing religion into the far left does not make much sense. Should have just said radical far left extremists and left the religion out of it. I concur My other point, which is more philosophy or view, is that the radicals on either side of extremism spectrum fall into the same intolerant thinking of the religious extremists. The intolerance of these groups is what makes them so dangerous. There is no discussing view points or common ground, they essentially only wish for the "destruction" of those who think and believe differently. You have people exactly like this in this cesspool sub. It is their "religion" and they identify as people with that far end of the spectrum.
Right on agreed. On both sides of the aisle. I tend to think most Americans fall somewhere in the middle, but this forum makes me re-think things quite often.
@DeezyAZ81 My whole point was throwing religion into the far left does not make much sense. Should have just said radical far left extremists and left the religion out of it. I concur My other point, which is more philosophy or view, is that the radicals on either side of extremism spectrum fall into the same intolerant thinking of the religious extremists. The intolerance of these groups is what makes them so dangerous. There is no discussing view points or common ground, they essentially only wish for the "destruction" of those who think and believe differently. You have people exactly like this in this cesspool sub. It is their "religion" and they identify as people with that far end of the spectrum.
Right on agreed. On both sides of the aisle. I tend to think most Americans fall somewhere in the middle, but this forum makes me re-think things quite often.
Axios report that Biden administration plans to shield medical records from criminal investigations for women who cross state lines for abortion.
Yea, ok....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous
maybe we should have our government find Waldo too...maybe they can get Bluey on the case...just stop already...this abortion issue is getting out of hand....eliminate sex altogether is the next step and since many in these forums aren't getting any I'm sure the government can gather many posters on COVERS to help in their research of how not to get laid....everyone should be prepared for this call when it comes and you must press 2 to hear it in English
COVERS allows you to tell others they r sexually confused so long as your hands are clean
Axios report that Biden administration plans to shield medical records from criminal investigations for women who cross state lines for abortion.
Yea, ok....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous
maybe we should have our government find Waldo too...maybe they can get Bluey on the case...just stop already...this abortion issue is getting out of hand....eliminate sex altogether is the next step and since many in these forums aren't getting any I'm sure the government can gather many posters on COVERS to help in their research of how not to get laid....everyone should be prepared for this call when it comes and you must press 2 to hear it in English
So you do not support the concept of women being able to have consistent rights with regards to abortion since it is their body and all? States cannot make proper decisions and we are seeing it right in front of our face. Morons down here pull out some 1800s relic on the books and now we dropped back 200 years in time. Even if you are against certain guidelines for abortion there needs to be a minimum standard that any citizen in any state can know exists not based on what screwball state legislature thinks.
The reason why the federal government steps in is for this exact cause, extremists make awful legislative decisions based usually on religious intolerance and that is not what this country is about, extremists in all directions are not representative of society as a whole and even if you might disagree with abortion in your home it is the purpose that government is to exist and that is to protect the greater good and those who might not agree with religious beliefs.
So you do not support the concept of women being able to have consistent rights with regards to abortion since it is their body and all? States cannot make proper decisions and we are seeing it right in front of our face. Morons down here pull out some 1800s relic on the books and now we dropped back 200 years in time. Even if you are against certain guidelines for abortion there needs to be a minimum standard that any citizen in any state can know exists not based on what screwball state legislature thinks.
The reason why the federal government steps in is for this exact cause, extremists make awful legislative decisions based usually on religious intolerance and that is not what this country is about, extremists in all directions are not representative of society as a whole and even if you might disagree with abortion in your home it is the purpose that government is to exist and that is to protect the greater good and those who might not agree with religious beliefs.
....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous
On ABC news, Trump tries to deflect blame by saying it's up to states whether they want to prosecute women for abortions. However Biden says abortion isn't about state rights. This is about women's rights. Now elections determine whether women have reproductive freedom. Or whether states continue assault to control women.
....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous
On ABC news, Trump tries to deflect blame by saying it's up to states whether they want to prosecute women for abortions. However Biden says abortion isn't about state rights. This is about women's rights. Now elections determine whether women have reproductive freedom. Or whether states continue assault to control women.
@ABooksNightmare So you do not support the concept of women being able to have consistent rights with regards to abortion since it is their body and all? States cannot make proper decisions and we are seeing it right in front of our face. Morons down here pull out some 1800s relic on the books and now we dropped back 200 years in time. Even if you are against certain guidelines for abortion there needs to be a minimum standard that any citizen in any state can know exists not based on what screwball state legislature thinks. The reason why the federal government steps in is for this exact cause, extremists make awful legislative decisions based usually on religious intolerance and that is not what this country is about, extremists in all directions are not representative of society as a whole and even if you might disagree with abortion in your home it is the purpose that government is to exist and that is to protect the greater good and those who might not agree with religious beliefs.
What I am saying is that our nation was created on freedom and being able to make choices. If the female wishes to abort their child for any reason it should be their choice. It is their body and theirs alone. you can create arguments either way for when life should or shouldn't be aborted but until it is born it should be the females choice. Now, if we want to get into another discussion about whether some should have child altogether that is a different story. You SHOULD be mentally, physically and financially stable to bring or want to bring a child into this world. This is the topic that is not discussed enough or at all. I see zero reason for children to be born just to give them up for adoption or create broken homes. This is a proven fact that this does not work. Why we allow people to have children that are not capable of caring for themselves is beyond me, but as I stated we are a nation based on freedom and choice. It doesn't make it right though, however, to give birth to unfortunate or horrible circumstances as those kids are not given their best chance at life. Some make it and some prevail, but there are far more stories about those that don't. This should be addressed more instead of taking away an option to abort that should be allowed.
And let's face it, most abortions are early on in the stage and not in the last trimester....and I am not saying that abortion should be used as a form of birth control either. We need sensibility in the situation not government hands....choice, as in life, is critical....
And the religious argument is a joke...
COVERS allows you to tell others they r sexually confused so long as your hands are clean
@ABooksNightmare So you do not support the concept of women being able to have consistent rights with regards to abortion since it is their body and all? States cannot make proper decisions and we are seeing it right in front of our face. Morons down here pull out some 1800s relic on the books and now we dropped back 200 years in time. Even if you are against certain guidelines for abortion there needs to be a minimum standard that any citizen in any state can know exists not based on what screwball state legislature thinks. The reason why the federal government steps in is for this exact cause, extremists make awful legislative decisions based usually on religious intolerance and that is not what this country is about, extremists in all directions are not representative of society as a whole and even if you might disagree with abortion in your home it is the purpose that government is to exist and that is to protect the greater good and those who might not agree with religious beliefs.
What I am saying is that our nation was created on freedom and being able to make choices. If the female wishes to abort their child for any reason it should be their choice. It is their body and theirs alone. you can create arguments either way for when life should or shouldn't be aborted but until it is born it should be the females choice. Now, if we want to get into another discussion about whether some should have child altogether that is a different story. You SHOULD be mentally, physically and financially stable to bring or want to bring a child into this world. This is the topic that is not discussed enough or at all. I see zero reason for children to be born just to give them up for adoption or create broken homes. This is a proven fact that this does not work. Why we allow people to have children that are not capable of caring for themselves is beyond me, but as I stated we are a nation based on freedom and choice. It doesn't make it right though, however, to give birth to unfortunate or horrible circumstances as those kids are not given their best chance at life. Some make it and some prevail, but there are far more stories about those that don't. This should be addressed more instead of taking away an option to abort that should be allowed.
And let's face it, most abortions are early on in the stage and not in the last trimester....and I am not saying that abortion should be used as a form of birth control either. We need sensibility in the situation not government hands....choice, as in life, is critical....
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare: ....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous On ABC news, Trump tries to deflect blame by saying it's up to states whether they want to prosecute women for abortions. However Biden says abortion isn't about state rights. This is about women's rights. Now elections determine whether women have reproductive freedom. Or whether states continue assault to control women.
It is about women's rights and their choice....it is their body and should be their choice whether they wish to bring a human into this world and a man has zero say so in the matter on whether or not that woman wants to give childbirth or abort it. Let that resonate with most....men have no say in the matter even if you want the child. It is solely up to the female. That will never change unless you want laws to be implemented to the contrary. Good for Biden if that is the case and bad for Trump.
COVERS allows you to tell others they r sexually confused so long as your hands are clean
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare: ....does our government really need to be involved with this...it's kind of ridiculous On ABC news, Trump tries to deflect blame by saying it's up to states whether they want to prosecute women for abortions. However Biden says abortion isn't about state rights. This is about women's rights. Now elections determine whether women have reproductive freedom. Or whether states continue assault to control women.
It is about women's rights and their choice....it is their body and should be their choice whether they wish to bring a human into this world and a man has zero say so in the matter on whether or not that woman wants to give childbirth or abort it. Let that resonate with most....men have no say in the matter even if you want the child. It is solely up to the female. That will never change unless you want laws to be implemented to the contrary. Good for Biden if that is the case and bad for Trump.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.