Okay, this is really sick.
EXCERPTS:
Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said.
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."
The interview will air days before Simpson’s new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."
So O.J. Simpson has a book coming out in which he talks about how he would have killed his wife and her friend "If I did it." Note the tense: "If I did it," suggesting that he might have, not "If I had done it," suggesting that he didn’t.
This is simply unimaginable.
What kind of man whose wife was brutally murdered and who didn’t kill her writes a book to cash-in on her death by describing how he would have killed her–if he was the one who committed the crime?
No faithful husband who wants to honor the memory of his late wife does anything remotely like that. You couldn’t pay a husband who loved his wife enough money to do that kind of monstrous thing. A genuinely bereaved husband–no matter how much time had passed–would throw a publisher’s money back in his face and then denounce the publisher in public for even making the offer.
Even someone who was not a loving husband wouldn’t do that. Only a monster would do that kind of thing.
This is sick and disgusting.
A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.
Which makes my mind wonder if there is a legal way he could be criminally prosecuted again, double-jeopardy laws notwithstanding.
GET THE STORY.
A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.
Well said, Jimmy!
Unfortunately, some so-called expert that was interviewed yesterday on the news radio said that “If O.J. really did it, he would’ve confessed it 12 years ago!”, citing double jeopardy.
However, this would appear more like O.J. confessing without him necessarily confessing!
But, in all, it would strike some as a “I got away with murder and there’s nothing you can do about it” kind of stunt.
Talk O.J. talk. Maybe he’ll eventually slip up and provide new evidence. Can’t he be re-tried if new compelling evidence is found?
This reminds me of the athletes who are suspected of using illegal substances and state “You have no proof”. Not “I didn’t use illegal substances”, but “you have no proof”.
I wonder if the book mentions that he would have dropped a too-small glove on the scene to try to throw the police off his trail and confound the less-than-stellar prosecutors at the trial?
Sick. Just sick and wrong.
Constitutionally he can not be tried again, as the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”
Potentially however, Simpson’s fee for writing the book can be seized in order to satisfy the civil judgment against him. But in Florida that’s a longshot.
Jimmy Akin said: Note the tense: “If I did it,” suggesting that he might have, not “If I had done it,” suggesting that he didn’t.
Ah, Jimmy, you noticed that too. Actually, I heard the story last night, but even hearing it verbally and not seeing it in writing, that was what jumped out at me.
I wish that I was sure that was a taunt and not just a vast ignorance of the subtlety and delicacy of the English language. See, people? This kind of stuff is why we have to be precise when we speak.
Militant Defenders of the Grandeur of the English Language, unite!
Mary
One thing confuses me though. Why hasn’t O.J. returned to stardom? Hollywood usually puts the bad boys up on a pedestal. You mean to say he actually went too far even for Hollywood?! Maybe in another 10 years.
My reaction exactly, Jimmy. This is just sick and wrong, comparable to Michael “When is that b**** going to die?” Schiavo.
English = If I had done it.
Ebonics = If I did it.
Flanders = If I had ding-dang-diddly done it.
“A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.”
and what is this about? explaining how one person can commit a more perfect crime than another? how one can kill someone else better than another? “a sign of the times we live in” indeed!!
If I remember right, “he got away with murder” because those in authority did not want Los Angeles / Long Beach area to explode again in racial riots / violence / looting so soon after it had just a year or so earlier.
… talk about a victim of circumstance.
You may be a gramatical expert, O.J. isn’t….
For him “did it “had done it” may be synonymous.
I don’t think that you can draw any conclusions based on his statement. That said, I think this is sick and disgusting and it doesn’t say a lot for the publishing house either.
A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.
I’m not sure if that is it. He reminds me of the main character in Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” who commits a murder and the guilt slowly eats away at him. I think O.J. on some level wants to confess to get the burden off his conscience, but simply doesn’t have the moral strength to do so.
I echo Jim Rome’s take: “WORST … GUY … EVER!”
Rome went on to say that he did not mean that in the sense that you might be talking to a buddy and say “that guy’s the worst guy ever,” and that while he didn’t have any more knowledge of the afterlife than the next guy, he was actually rooting for there to be a Heaven and a Hell just so there would be a special place in the latter for OJ.
Not that I ever had any real doubt about OJ’s guilt, but I got it straight from the horse’s mouth when Dershowitz was laying out a hypothetical from the OJ case in my Crim Law class and said something like “So when OJ … er … I mean … the killer…,” at which the whole class erupted in laughter. Dersh, assuredly aware that the entire class had drawn the correct inference, simply observed “Hey, I didn’t actually *say* that he did it.” No, he didn’t say it, but it sure wasn’t much of a denial.
I’m boycotting Fox News and Regan. Serving as an outlet for OJ’s ghoulish profiteering is below any human standard of decency. The only positive side to this is that he has finally fulfilled his promise to find the killer.
Interesting that in the same year he killed his wife (if he did it) his last movie came out titled “The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult”.
I think O.J. on some level wants to confess to get the burden off his conscience, but simply doesn’t have the moral strength to do so.
or access to the Sacrament (presuming he’s not Catholic). Is this some way to get the emotial relief that the Sacrament of Confession sometimes provides without technically confessing anything?
Does this mean that O.J. has given up his search for “the real killers”?
Assuming O.J. were Catholic, guilty of the murders, and contrite, and would make a vaild confession, then what would be an appropriate satisfaction for these sins?
Francis has it right: this is what guilt looks like.
I find it fascinating when folks display such a need for the Sacraments Christ gave us to the point they’ll remake inferior versions of them. Like the website called PostSecret (occasional language & image warning so I won’t post the URL here) that invites people to artfully create a postcard of something they’d like to confess & then puts it on the internet. People are in desperate need for the Sacraments! Thank God for them! I sure know where I would be without them.
And it’s Nichole’s kids my heart goes out to here. What are they supposed to think about such a book? And the *father* who wrote it? Whether OJ did or did’nt do it, he’s a monster either way. And in need of prayer.
I don’t know if OJ deserves the benefit of the doubt to this extent but:
I suppose it’s possible that he didn’t kill his wife, is writing this book because he didn’t care for her or even harbored hostile feelings toward her.
Any way you look at it, it doesn’t look good.
Do we have a word that means in-your-face-disgusting-revolting? If we do, I’d use it to describe OJS and this publisher.
Do we have a word that means in-your-face-disgusting-revolting?
If we don’t have a word already, might as well make one up and place O.J.’s picture above next to it in a new dictionary specifically dealing with such filth!
I think this tactic might have worked better in 1995, when his defense should have been trying to find ways to reduce the plausibility of his indictment. Today, only my disgust at this stunt surpasses my lack of interest in the whole mess.
A second trial can indeed be held if substantial new evidence is uncovered.
If it weren’t for the media circus eleven years ago, I’d wonder if OJ were trying to poison the well of jurors, in anticipation of some harder evidence coming to light. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’d have a harder time finding twelve objective citizens even today than they did back then.
He can be tried for another crime though.
Obstruction…
Lying under oath…
Plus some other things.
Sorry Ed Pie, he’s been found not guilty of the crime, he can never be put back on trial for it again.
It depends on what your definition of “if” is.
Speaking of the infamous glove, have you ever tried putting on a regular glove with a latex one already on?
Ought we really to be calling people “monsters?”
Ought we really to be calling people “monsters?”
Yeah, people who murder people so ruthlessly and get away with it, and, then, flaunt that shouldn’t be called monsters!
How dare Jimmy does that!
“Ought we really to be calling people ‘monsters’?”
Yes. Evil should be called what it is. Evil people should be called what they are. Evil and evil people should be fought tooth and nail, with no let up, until they are defeated.
No faithful husband who wants to honor the memory of his late wife does anything remotely like that. You couldn’t pay a husband who loved his wife enough money to do that kind of monstrous thing. A genuinely bereaved husband–no matter how much time had passed–would throw a publisher’s money back in his face and then denounce the publisher in public for even making the offer.
Except that O.J. was Nicole Brown’s ex-husband, and was never claiming to be her “faithful husband.” I can think of quite a few people who wouldn’t feel any particular need to appear “genuinely bereaved” by the death, even the violent death, of an ex-spouse. (Most of them, however, would refrain from a stunt like this, not because they wanted to appear to be a loving spouse to the deceased ex, but simply out of good taste.)
OJ: When the idea of gettin back together came up that night, she said, ‘If you ax me, I won’t say yes.’
Dick Cavett: Therein lied the problem.
Personally, after the reading of the verdict on that terrible day – and seeing the reaction of those who supported him simply because of his race – I don’t think anything in this whole horrid saga could shock me.
No matter how he says it (or doesn’t say it) we all know that he did it. I hope that the jurors – if they haven’t realized it by now – will now understand how they let him get away with murder – just as his former wife said he would.
I don’t really believe that he has an urge to confess to clear his conscience – I don’t believe that a person who has behaved as he has since the murders has a conscience – He’s doing it solely for the money. And, the cagey-ness of “If I Did It” may have to do with an attempt to avoid an imagined perjury charge.
I am not surprised by anything that he would do – but I am surprised and dismayed at Fox for giving him a forum – and I hope nobody buys his book – although it will probably be a best seller.
Lying under oath…
He didn’t testify.
FLASH!! ON Drudge right now, this statement from the publisher:
http://drudgereport.com/flash1jr.htm
It is oft-used police tactic to get at least a little bit more information on the case to say to the accused, “Well, if you did it, how would it go down?” Sometimes, the suspect gets talking and a few more details slip out that the police can investigate.
I’ve seen episodes of Forensic Files on CourtTV that are solved by finding manuscripts similar in vein to OJ’s book written by the suspects.
Bottom line, in my opinion, no one who is truly innocent would do something like this. This may be cathartic for OJ; a way of confessing without actually having to confess. From Roy Hazelwood, FBI profiler, about his book Dark Dreams:
I think that applies to OJ, too.
OJ is NOT the worse guy ever. Did he probably kill his EX wife (who was peforming oral sex on Goldman and he got jealous when followed her and watched)YES he probably did. Was it probably a crime of passion or a one time thing YES.
Nicole was a promiscous women who was not a good mother and OJ was caught up in modern secular life.
King David killed his greates battle lord Uriah when he lusted after Bathsheeba but he repented (never went to jail) and remained a great King.
OJ also lost his mind when he saw his children suffer and his wife (or ex wife) act in a wanton manner when he still loved her.
I am not saying it is right, but any man who has been in an intense modern secular romantic relationship with a woman may have lost his mind temporarily or at least thought about violence.
King David fell to his face in the dust and prayed like crazy for forgiveness…he didn’t write a book called “How I Murdered Her Husband” or whatever.
“Yes. Evil should be called what it is. Evil people should be called what they are. Evil and evil people should be fought tooth and nail, with no let up, until they are defeated.”
NO Bill, the worst people are the priests and the bishops who covered up their sins to the point where there are thousands of victims, maybe tens of thousands of victims, and maybe thousands of perpetrators. Hurting lives.
Not OJ
OJ is a man without morals and desperately needs money right now. All evidence leads to the fact that he murdered his wife. I feel for his deceased wife’s family and for the children who are now 18 and 20 – they are the ones who are suffering the most in this wicked ordeal. They need our prayers as does OJ. He is headed for hell unless he repents.
Anytime a strong Black man becomes successfull and gets white women, you all gang up on him.
Lynching was accepted, and plenty of white people kill people including their wives and they do write books and end up on Jerry Springer.
You guys were all down on Bishop Millingue even though he cast out demons and healed people and had a lot of problems. No mercy or cutting breaks for the Black man.
OJ is a strong, funny, good looking Black man and a great athlete. I hear he is a good dad and loves his kids, more than I can say for the parents and priests who molested them and were transferred around from Church to Church. That is truly disgusting.
Maybe OJ is innocent, you don’t like his book but he needs money to pay the civil suit and you ain’t paying his bills.
OJ is a good man.
Calvin,
Baselessly accusing people of racism and changing the subject to sexual abuse is a dishonest way to argue. I don’t know if O.J. is guilty of killing his wife or not because I didn’t pay any attention to his trial, but, guilty or not, what he’s doing now is awful.
Calvin,
You are seriously misinformed if you think that I wouldn’t blog exactly the same thing about a person of O.J. Simpson’s prominence who had written a book of this nature and who was white or yellow or red or brown or green or purple.
“If I Did It” is a vile, sick thing no matter what the cosmetics of the individual in question are.
Don’t be distracted by cosmetics.
Do not assess men by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Calvin Broadus:
I know who you are!!!
You can’t hide behind that name — SNOOP!
You know he’s in fact guilty — you’re just on the “down-low” and so you’re actually projecting your own guilt and that’s why you bring up the stuff about priests who molests people!
Stop being on the “down-low” and face your own guilt, give your life to Jesus, and “why seest thou the mote in thy brother’s eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not?” (Lk 6:41)
Something just occurred to me; maybe I’m slow on the uptake but the news is definitely delivered to me with a certain bent. I’m not able to watch the extra stuff on TV so I don’t know how far this can go.
But could the aim of O.J.’s book be this: To demonstrate how it could have been done, with the aim of illustrating such a complex series of events such that people dismiss it as extremely unlikely and implausible?
“I would have had to do X and Y and Z in such a short amount of time, and would have anticipated A, B and C, etc.” And the wilder the story gets, the more unlikely (O.J. would hope) it would seem, that these things actually happened.
Regarding “If I did it”: It’s not the best choice of words but this style of speaking isn’t uncommon. Lots of people don’t think to use, “If I were to…”, “If I were to have…”, “If I had…”, “If I would have…” constructs where they would be more appropriate.
P.S. ^^ That idea might be obvious to others but it’s not in the news I’ve been reading. All the headlines and stories are spinning it as if it’s a confession that isn’t a confession, and are concentrating on the outrage. O.J.’s motivation for the book is absent in what I am reading.
“You’re all rascists!” says the anti-Catholic bigot. LOL.
“OJ is a good man.” Contact me, Calvin. I’ve got a great deal for you on some swamp land in the Mojave desert, that I’m forced to sell at well-below market value, due to a cash-flow problem.
I’m working part time in a bookstore this Christmas season, and this waste of trees is going to be published November 30th. I hate to think of even touching it. There’s no way I’d buy it myself – I don’t want one groat of my money going to this monster – but I am going to have to practice my stone face when people come up to the cash register with it.
My favorite from that post: “Maybe OJ is innocent…”
MAYBE? You just said he’s a good man. Now you say “maybe” he’s innocent?
Even you know he’s guilty. And, like it or not, you just admitted it.
Bill is unethical enough to sell real estate he does not own in the Mojave desert and to a person of color to continue oppression.
A jury of his peers acquited him in a court of law. Now all of you know better.
Just like with Bill Moyers you should allow him or his lawyer (OJ that is) to come and defend himself. We do not know his motivation nor why he is doing this.
OJ cannot be retried but we sure could banish him from society. Unfortunately “money grubbers” are not helping the cause. Do your part, don’t buy the book, don’t listen to the interview, if you ever play golf behind him, whiz a few balls by his ear and if you see him driving his car, blast your horn in his ear. What should we call the process? “Shun OJ to Oblivion” sounds pretty good.
Bill, how dare you attempt to sell Calvin fictitious real estate just because he’s black! Shame on you.
LOL
Bill is unethical enough to sell real estate he does not own in the Mojave desert and to a person of color to continue oppression.
I bought some from him — and I’m ‘green’! It’s nice too — Area 51! I can have all the fun I want with SETI fanatics!
A jury of his peers acquited him in a court of law. Now all of you know better.
Yeah! These people here are idiots! Since he was acquitted, OBVIOUSLY, he’s innocent! You’re right! Like way back when, a jury unanimously found a guy by the name of Jesus ‘guilty’ and crucified him. That guy was definitely GUILTY!
Just like with Bill Moyers you should allow him or his lawyer (OJ that is) to come and defend himself. We do not know his motivation nor why he is doing this.
Darn it, folks! We don’t know why O.J. killed these folks and why he wants to publish this book that clearly indicates that he didn’t do it! (cough, cough)
The “dang double jeopardy law” as you call it is part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has held to be applicable to the States through the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am a lawyer. Personally, I can see barring the government from seeking a second bite at the apple, but I do not understand why a defendant who is acquitted, and thereafter admits the commission of the crime, should not be subject to prosecution. But that is NOT the law. An acquitted defendant can admit the commission of the crime with impunity. For an example of that, recall the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, the black teenager who “talked fresh” to a white woman in Money, Mississippi. The men who killed him were acquitted, and thereafter, they sold their story to a magazine, explaining how they killed him.
“he needs money to pay the civil suit and you ain’t paying his bills.”
I could almost see some good out of this if O.J. committed to giving the proceeds of this book to settle part of the civil suit, or to some charity (maybe an anit-spouse-abuse charity). But, instead, I have read how OJ plans to spend the money quickly before a court action can divert it to the civil judgement.
Therefore, any $$ from this book and interview, etc. are being flushed down the toilet.
Tell me how a “good person” does this? I have no idea how much he is being paid by the publisher, or what his “take” is, but a “good man” would use the $$ to take care of his responsibilities.
Finally, a “good Dad” doesn’t murder his children’s mother.
+J.M.J+
>>>I’m boycotting Fox News and Regan.
Technically, it’s the Fox Television Network that’s showing the interview, not the Fox News Network. Two different stations, though both owned by News Corp, which also owns a few Fox Sports channels, FX, 20th Century Fox, the NY Post, etc. Though they’re all under the same parent company, the actions of each network or other asset are more or less independent from the others.
In Jesu et Maria,
Ms. Regan also wrote that she believed it was her responsibility as a publisher to bring Mr. Simpson’s words to the public, and she likened her role to “the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ in print to this day.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/books/17ojbook.html?ref=arts
“If I did It” is being compared to “Mein Kampf”?
In that case, O.J. is in good company, all things considered!
Johns,
News to me. I thought new evidence, appeals, and multiple jurisdictions involved in the crime were all exceptions to double jeopardy, since the idea was just to prevent the same prosecutors from restaging substantially the same trial over and over until a jury gave them what they want, while giving the state a reasonable chance to pursue justice for itself.
On a more urgent topic…
Evil should be called what it is. Evil people should be called what they are.
I’ll call an evil act evil, but I won’t call a person evil. If we’re going to be judged by the measure we use to judge others, I want to set the bar so low that even I can get over it.
Ed Pie:
New evidence is not, to my knowledge, a basis for retrial after a aquittal. It can at times be used as a basis for appeal after a conviction, but in that instance, as in all appeals, it isn’t really double jeopardy as the original verdict is vacated.
A different jurisdiction, including the federal government, could bring a second suit (and there is no statute of limitations on murder). I believe this was done with the Rodney King cops (I think there was a second, federal prosecution for Civil Rights violations). But that jurisidiction would have to HAVE jurisdiction. I don’t see any basis for that here.
Personally, I’d prefer a book called, “If LA County had competent DAs, here’s how I would’ve been convicted”.
Unfortunately, even if O.J. were to completely slip up and admit everything, I think the best that that we could hope for is a perjury charge. But, applying the logic of the pro-Clinton crowd, we shouldn’t punish him for that, because any murderer would have lied. After all, if you brutally murdered to people, would you admit it?
Of course! It’s the “pro-Clinton crowd’s” fault.
Not the pro-Bush “what, you were asking about THAT Rumsfeld?” crowds’.
i think the conscious intent of the book is to support his claims of innocence: If I was going to kill her, her death would have been different than it was, so obviously i couldn’t be the one who killed her. It probably makes perfect sense to him.
What appears to escape his notice is that most people have long since made up their minds about him either way, and nothing short of a plausible confession by “the real killer” is going to change the minds of those who think he’s guilty.
You crackers really crack me up. Mr. Bill wants to sell me real estate like I was Bobo da Fool. (It is actually Foo but I want to make sure I am clear like Bobo da Foo and FooFoo da Boo)
Were you there? Did you see OJ do it?
Are you paying his bills?
I respects lots of Catholics, Biggie and PDiddy went to Catholic schools. Lots of good ejumication. BUT OJ may have done something bad but what about all them bad priests. Maybe they are evil. The guy who should go to jail is Cardinal Law. You all don’t like gumps, so Shanley was running gay retreats and da like. Too Short likes women but not men.
OJ should have not been in a permanent relationship with a secular white ho.
Women can make you crazy. OJ wanted to be white. But when he was in trouble he was driving with da Brutha.
OJ had his day in court, a white court, and HE WON.
You are jealous of OJ, he can run (great ball player and athlete), he can act (those naked gun movies are hilarious), he is good looking. Nichole was debauched, divorced (against you Catholics), committed adultery.
OJ is a good dad. HE GOT CUSTODY.
IF he did kill Nichole it was an act of passion.
It could happen to any of us, your St. Escriva said we are all could be great evil sinners.
Let’s see what he says, and his motivation. Invite him to this board like the PBS guy and let him explain. BUT stop taking down a successfull Black Man.
FIGHT THE POWER
You crackers really crack me up.
You, brutha, r so whacked!
They ain’t no ‘crackers’ here, foo!
And the only ‘racism’ is dat homey da clown crap you keep pullin’ on dem innocent folks here.
Grow up and stop fakin’ dem ebonics crap here!
And about your BUT stop taking down a successfull Black Man.
You’re a damn idiot, if that’s what you consider a successful black man — Sydney Potier was a successful black man — O.J. is something else, foo!
You are jealous of OJ, he can run (great ball player and athlete), he can act (those naked gun movies are hilarious), he is good looking.
Like I said in my outha post — u r on the “down-low”, bro, and wat u just said here proves it!
“Crackers”? I’m part Cherokee. But maybe Calvin is as rascist against Indians as he is against whites.
“Personally, I’d prefer a book called, “If LA County had competent DAs, here’s how I would’ve been convicted”.”
Amen!!
“You are jealous of OJ, he can run (great ball player and athlete), he can act (those naked gun movies are hilarious), he is good looking.”
Now I know for certain this is not Snoop Dogg. Even he knows O.J. cannot act…
Bill,
May St. Issac Jogues, St. John Brebeuf and Kiki Terewatha interced for you.
I didn’t realize this was a Black thang vs. a Cherokee Indian thing.
I’m down with the Indians (American as in Native although my favorite is Nez Pierce) just not with your cracker racist ill informed anti-OJ propaganda.
I dialed 9-11 along time ago.
Get up get get get down, 9-11 is a joke in your town. Don’t judge a brutha until you walked a mile in his mf mocassins. (I personally prefer gators to those ugly bruno magli mocassins)
Brutha Bishop Millingue (how many demons have you cast out?) is a saint. Married priests are better than pedophiles or this common law stuff the Hispanics priests are doing although I love Hispanic women too.
Jeff, the low key brilliant acting of OJ in the Naked Gun series with Leslie Nielson were great.
Everyone knows that. Lots of laughst like Bob Hope, Abbot and Costello–all good comedians
BUT THE GREATEST COMEDIANS ARE BRUTHATS YOU MOTHAS:
especially modern era: Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Def Comedy Jam and yes we still include light skin sell out for a time OJ, (for you comedy radtrads yes there is nothing like Richard Pryor)
and for you anti-Judaizing trads–I do like Sasha Brusin or Da Ali G/Borat, and Martin was good too.
But OJ may not have been your Mel (but Braveheart was good and Lethal Weapon and I am down with the Nation like Ice Cube but I love Jesus and the Passion)
Look there are some good Catholics, St. Martin de Porres, St. Benedict (the Black), the Ugandan Martyers, St. Michael Tansi
also Augustine was Black, some of the first Popes were Black
But wannabee red man real estate con Bill, and the others have a problem with strong black men like OJ, Millingue, and none of you voted for Cardinal Arinze–because you neocon capitalist American quasi Catholic cracker mf racists couldn’t deal with a Black man being Pope–even though Jesus was Black and Mary was Black and learned his mystical knowledge from Kemet (Egypt)
(Read Revelations and the descriptions it is dark skin and kinky hair) You guys got some good education (at times) and like I said educated Biggie (RIP) and Puff (now P) (Biggie had the best flow)but you got some real problems with your racism, your pedophile short eyes, and let them priests get married like Millingue.
Leave OJ alone
and FIGHT THE POWERS THAT BE
Elvis was a hero to most but he don’t mean sh-t to me
Calvin,
You’re new here, so I assume that you haven’t read Da Rulz. If you can live by them, you’re welcome to participate.
Referring to others as “crackers,” “racists,” “mothas,” “mf”s, and using words like “sh-t” is a violation of RULE 1.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated. If you don’t want this kind of language used regarding you, don’t use it with others.
You’re welcome to disagree with anyone you like–about OJ or anything else–but you MUST be polite, and this includes *not* using vulgarity and making slurs against others.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Warren G,
Keep it polite.
Same goes for everyone else.
CALVIN WANNA BE SNOOP:
…none of you voted for Cardinal Arinze–because you neocon capitalist American quasi Catholic cracker mf racists couldn’t deal with a Black man being Pope–
We could actually vote for a Pope?
Now where did I leave that absentee ballot?
(Sorry, Jimmy. This guy is representing the black community in the most negative way and does not speak for any of us. He’s an embarassment to the black community and shows everything that is wrong with some of its members who play the race card, generalize folks, put scum up like O.J. as their idols instead of good and decent black men like Colin Powell, and doesn’t realize that racism is a two-way street.)
I doubt that Calvin is black.
Since Jimmy Akin is into Science fiction, how many Black men were in Star Wars
Only one (Billy Dee) and they made him a traitor.
Tom Warren G, your bougious Colin Powell stuff nobody is buying.
Tim J do you want me to post my photo.
I would like to discuss the theology of Too Short.
your bougious Colin Powell stuff nobody is buying.
And you accuse people here of putting the black man down??? When it comes to scum like O.J., you acclaim them like a saint and put these up on pedestals and accuse anyone who would say the truth about them as ‘putting the black man down’; yet, when it comes to good role models like Colin Powell, you hurl and ‘put the black man down’ yourself!
Tim J do you want me to post my photo.
I think Tim J is straight.
He wouldn’t be interested.
Off
your bougious Colin Powell stuff nobody is buying.
And you accuse people here of putting the black man down??? When it comes to scum like O.J., you acclaim them like a saint and put these up on pedestals and accuse anyone who would say the truth about them as ‘putting the black man down’; yet, when it comes to good role models like Colin Powell, you hurl and ‘put the black man down’ yourself!
Tim J do you want me to post my photo.
I think Tim J is straight.
He wouldn’t be interested.
AND CALVIN:
Since Jimmy Akin is into Science fiction, how many Black men were in Star Wars
Only one (Billy Dee) and they made him a traitor.
Oh, yeah, Jimmy Akin was responsible for keeping our fellow black folks not being present in the Star Wars films.
By the way, it seems you only watched through Empire Strikes back; ever heard of Return of the Jedi?
Also, you don’t think O.J. is bougious?
“Calvin” is obviously a troll.
Other than Jeff, the only person who has picked up on the fact that Calvin Broadus is the real name for the rapper known as Snoop Dogg has been Warren.
I don’t recall previous posts by Warren. He may be a lurker. OTOH, given that both “Calvin” and Warren have used language not seen on this thread, I wonder if this thread has been hijacked. That is, by someone posting under both user names and laughing up his/her/their sleeve, in the misguided idea that he/they “put one over” the regular posters here.
I hadn’t seen this part of Calvin’s rant before:
…none of you voted for Cardinal Arinze–because you neocon capitalist American quasi Catholic cracker mf racists couldn’t deal with a Black man being Pope–
Actually, I’m on record supporting the idea of having black popes.
Mary Kay: I have significant evidence that Warren G and Calvin are *not* the same person. Warren is also posting in good faith.
Jimmy, thanks for clarifying. It was an off-chance, but given the turn this thread has taken since Calvin started, I wanted to ask.
At the risk of “feeding the troll”…
A black Pope would be good (in the abstract, I think B16 was the best choice the Cardinals had last time around) but I’m afraid there is little evidence that Jesus and Mary were black, and as far as I know the African Popes and St. Augustine of Hippo could have been either black or “middle-eastern looking” by todays standards; it just wasn’t recorded, and while there were blacks in both North Africa and Italy most people were of a more Mediterranian/Middle-Eastern ethnicity.
I’ve encountered in the past the idea that Revelation 9 describes a black Jesus but any translation I’ve read just says, amoung other very symbolic features like fiery eyes, a shinining face, and a voice like rushing water, that Jesus’ feet were like polished bronze or brass and that his hair was white as white wool or snow. That doesn’t go against the idea that Jesus was “black” in appearance (in life) but it certainly doesn’t support it if you are at all rational about it. Granted some might propose that the translations are written by racists and the original says something very different. I don’t know the Greek to refute that (Jimmy might chime in about that or blog on it later) but I find that idea very unlikely.
I see no reason why he wouldn’t have looked like the darker-skinned, middle-eastern derived type of Jews you sometimes see today.
Be it known that I don’t mean to step on any toes here, and I hope Calvin has been banned from this site. To me this is basically an academic question. I’m no racist (if I was would I be dating a significantly Cherokee girl or have black and latino friends?). I am interested in truth though.
By the way, in my experience it is a bad idea to accuse different combox posters of being the same person. Generally it turns out not to be true, which just strengthens the obnoxious posters (not that Warren’s that bad in this case).
I meant to add (in fact I did add it but seem to have erased it) that since there were blacks in Italy perhaps some of the early Italian popes could have been black as well. Who knows?
p.s. To be honest I am an eight (Russian) Jewish so I guess I do have a bit of a personal bias towards Jesus being the same “kind of Jew” as my ancestry.
Also a tinsy bit Lanape (Delaware Indian), yay I can kinda pretend I’m not all white/Jew!
That’s an eighth Jewish. Sorry.
JRS, I’d forgotten that had happened recently on some threads. At any rate, this seemed to be a different sort of escalation and my hope had been to defuse it, or at least, slow it down.
I also spelled Lenape wrong. Yeah I’ll shut up and crawl into my white kid hole now.
Is cracker pejorative? Is it cultural or a joke or what.
It does seem Warren and Calvin are both the same person. Aren’t both actually the actual name for rappers?
Jimmy Akin has been clear about the benefits of a Catholic Pope and it was on the record and a lot of Orthodox Catholics would of been happy with Francis Cardinal Arinze.
It does seem Warren and Calvin are both the same person. Aren’t both actually the actual name for rappers?
My thought is that Warren G, after noting Calvin’s monicker, decided to adopt a similar one for irony.
The (non-public) evidence that I have that they are two different individuals is very substantial.
I think it is innapropriate to call Calvin Broadas names or imply that he is gay (by saying that Tim J is straight and thus not interested in his photo even though I think the photo is in response to what race the individual is) I am sure Jimmy has enough evidence to deterimine a multiple poster through IP addresses or through language patterns and Warren seems to be posting in good faith and a distinct person. Whether or not he is new or this is “hijacked” and focused on American racial “politics” is another question.
However, as bizarre as some of the postings are Da Rules should be applied equally and eliminate calls of racism on both sides and accusations or implications of sexual origin. Smother Calvin with kindness and observe Warren as responding to defend more rational so called African Americans and good people like former general Colin Powell rather than OJ Simpson who at best is seriously flawed and certainly no hero, probably not innocent, and at best has poor taste if not incedible immorality in his current endeveaours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G
Warren G is not Warren G clearly and playing games. Many people take opposite positions to increase controversy. Warren G claims to be black but the artist Tim J notes that it may not be the case. What we do know is Warren G is not his real name and he has taken a name of a known person in the hip hop industry. Hip hop clearly has an inherent anti-Christian core and disastoruous consequences for culture. Warren G and his ilk should be exposed.
I do not think that Warren G is claiming to be the rapper Warren G. I think he is using the rapper’s name as an ironic Internet handle because Calvin Broadus is using Snoop Dog’s real name as an Internet handle. These name claims are not “playing games.” The use of handles–including ad hoc ones for a particular situation–are not at all unusual and are not meant to be serious claims to be the persons in question.
As I have already state, I have non-public information that strongly suggests that Warren G is not Calvin Broadus. They have different internet providers and are writing from different states. In fact, they’re two time zones away from each other.
Since I asked Warren G to keep it polite, he has made a good faith effort to do so. He also went to significant lengths to close the italics that he had inadvertently left open. This speaks to his acting in good faith rather than trying to cause trouble.
Take it easy. Okay?
Thanks, Jimmy. You landed on it precisely!
As usual, your intellect never fails you!
God is always with you, my friend, as He is with all those whom he loves and serves Him; and there will always be those behind you because of your love and service to God!
Please, keep up the great work!
“If I did it.” Note the tense: “If I did it,” suggesting that he might have, not “If I had done it,” suggesting that he didn’t.”
Not being a native English speaker, I can’t quite discern the difference.
Someone explain, please? (Knowing the difference might keep me out of jail in the future).
By the way, it seems you only watched through Empire Strikes back; ever heard of Return of the Jedi?
*Excellent* point.
Lando Calrissian is *exactly* the same as Han Solo, morally speaking: They both start out as charismatic rogues on the wrong side of the law/morality who then grow and find redemption, becoming true heroes.
Han starts as a selfish jerk who doesn’t care about anything but money and is willing to break the law and casually *shoot first* to kill people who are a threat to him (Greedo). He takes his money and leaves, only to come back and save Luke during the run on the Death Star. Then he wins the princess’ heart and finishes as a general fighting for the good guys.
Lando–as he starts out–is even less of a rogue than Han was in the first film. He’s not a jerk. He’s charming, charismatic, an efficient administrator and leader, and only does what he does because Darth Vader has forced him into it, and we know it’s tearing his heart out. Then, as soon as he has an opportunity, he turns on the Empire and works to save Han, risking his life, and then he himself *leads* the assault on the new Death Star. In both films he’s played as a cool, sympathetic character, and he clearly makes good.
And then there’s the matter of Mr. Cool himself, Mace Windu, the *head* of the Jedi Council.
This is not to say that George Lucas couldn’t have included more black characters (and there are others besides these two, like Queen Amidala’s chief of security, who is also a good, competent man who would have kept the queen out of trouble if she had only been willing to follow his counsel), but the two major ones are strong, sympathetic, and ultimately heroic–as well as popular with the fans.
“If I did it.” Note the tense: “If I did it,” suggesting that he might have, not “If I had done it,” suggesting that he didn’t.”
Not being a native English speaker, I can’t quite discern the difference.
Someone explain, please?
I’m not sure how well I can explain this (without thinking it through more), but the use of the simple past tense in “If I did” makes the possibility that he did it a more immediate possibility that he really did do it.
The use of the pluperfect in “If I had done” serves to distance the possibility from reality, making it a non-real possibility.
The pluperfect is “farther back” in the sequences of tenses than the simple past tense, making the possibility seem non-real.
Although formally English only has two tenses (past and present), it uses paraphrasis to cover other possibilities, in something like following sequence:
pluperfect: I had done
simple past/perfect: I did*
present: I do*
future: I will do
NOTE: There are other possibilities, here (like “I was doing” or “I will be doing” or “I will have done”), but I’m keeping it simple.
* indicates a true tense, where no auxiliary word is needed to convey the desired impression. All others use an auxiliary word like “had” “was” or “will” besides the main verb.
Hope that’s at least a *little* clarifying.
The point is that the pluperfect construction is farther back in the sequence and suggests an unreal (false) possibility when used after “if.”
“If” signals the possibility that it might not be real, and pushing the tense farther back in the sequence of tenses makes it seem more unreal–further removed from reality.
“If I did it” signals *maybe* it’s not real.
“If I had done it” signals, it’s *definitely* not real.
Is cracker pejorative? Is it cultural or a joke or what.
“Cracker” is a rough equivalent of the N-word.
It can be used non-pejoratively, like the N-word *can* be when used by a black person, though some black people find the N-word offensive no matter who uses it.
In the same way, “cracker” can be used non-pejoratively if it is used by a white person, though some white people always find “cracker” offensive, no matter who uses it.
Specfically, a cracker is a rural white person (i.e., “a hick,” “a redneck”), particularly one from Georgia or Florida.
Cracker culture is the culture of rural whites, particular those from Georgia or Florida.
It also appears that the term “cracker” is *not* derived from the foodstuff (the crackers that you eat) but from something else.
To add to what Jimmy said, the reason the lack of the pluperfect matters here is not so much because of the tense itself but because it would have indicated a subjunctive mood. English used past tense verbs to indicate present subjunctive (If I were* you, I if drank beer, etc.) and pluperfect for past tense subjunctive. Since the murder was clearly in the past, then “If I did it” was not subjunctive. Of course one can read too much into it: most people are not so precise with language and the publishers no doubt would welcome the suddle message to sell more books.
*Not the same as the indicative for the first person singular, but still a simple past form.
I should have said: “English uses past tense verbs…”
Yes, I think Publius is right. I’ve been trying to relate the indicative/subjunctive distinction to the sequence of tenses but haven’t found a satisfactory way to express it.
The fundamental point is that using the pluperfect after “if” sounds more unreal than using the simple past after “if.”
English used past tense verbs to indicate present subjunctive (If I were* you, I if drank beer, etc.) and pluperfect for past tense subjunctive.
Doing a little more research, I realize that grammar nazis might poke holes in my use of terminology, but what I said essentially right, at least as relates to conditional clauses starting with “if”: the subjunctive uses a simple past form to indicate a hypothetical action or condition in the present time and pluperfect forms to indicate a hypothetical condition or action in the past. For more than you ever wanted to know about the English subjunctive, check out this Wikipedia article.
Not to divert the combox even further, but, guys? Colin Powell ain’t that great either. He’s pro-abortion, for one. That means he’s pro-infant murder.
This has nothing to do with him being black. To pick a black politician off the top of my head, I supported the presidential candidacy of Alan Keyes. From what I know of the JC Watts seems like a good man, too.
J- he’s also been accused of all sorts of horrible racist things simply because he’s not a Democrat.
How about Condi? Mz Rice has been called “Aunt Jemima” (sp?) ever since I first heard of her– how dare a black woman be a Republican!
Yeah, unfortunately, Rice is pro-abortion as well.
I don’t know the first thing about English grammer except that I grew up with it. That said, “If I did it” means I could have done it or not, but in any case if I did then this is how it went down. “If I had done it” means I didn’t do it but if that were not the case this is how it would have been. Unless OJ’s dialect is much different than mine in this matter his saying “If I did it” in this context (why would he be writing a book otherwise, and why would he state the “if” in this way) all but constitutes a confession.
“I supported the presidential candidacy of Alan Keyes. From what I know of the JC Watts seems like a good man, too.”
Alan Keyes totally ROCKS! If I have to make a quixotic stand for a third party candidate in ’08, I would rather vote for him than anyone else.
And my speculation regarding Calvin Broadus’ actual race was pure gut reaction. I have no evidence at all… I just doubt he is black because he talks like a caricature… a walking encyclopedia of black stereotypes.
The “dang double jeopardy law” as you call it is part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has held to be applicable to the States through the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And what about this prevents us from calling it the “dang double jeopardy law” when it is clear that it will let someone get away with murder?
The double jeopardy law exists so that the
gov’t can’t keep retrying people until they
get the desired result–a guilty verdict.
Regardless of what happens, Simpson will need to give an accounting to God.
vivian: That’s all well and good, but in this case it led to a miscarriage of justice. And a murderer walks free.
J, that’s certainly true. Loopholes and abuses are some of the unfortunate things about our justice system. However, the Founders’ idea was that it was better that ten guilty men walk free than that one innocent person be jailed. That’s the underpinning idea of most of the Bill of Rights. It was a response to an abusive government, so maybe it’s extreme, but it’s what we’ve got (failing a Constitutional amendment).
I thought the double jeopardy law came from English Common Law originally. Maybe I’m mistaken. In any case it clearly has its benefits and drawbacks, and those are hard to compare with each other.
Do other countries have ways of trying criminals who got off the first time when new, compelling evidence comes to light, but safeguards against the ability to retry someone being abused to convict anyone the government wants to convict (or even leave him in prison indefinitely by just constantly trying him)? I would think that in a civilized country like America we could devise such a system.
BREAKING NEWS from MSNBC.com:
NEWS CORP. CANCELS PUBLICATION OF O.J. SIMPSON BOOK, TV SPECIAL
Fox cancels O.J. Simpson book, TV special
Chairman Rupert Murdoch says project was ‘ill-considered’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15818960/from/RS.3/
You all happy now that the book and TV show are nixed. Now, maybe the Brown and Goldman family (real immoral people) won’t get the money)
Remember that your Pope during the Civil War sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns when he was in prison. Davis defended slavery and killed more people than two immoral people who destroyed a family yet the Pope sympathized with him. You do not know what crosses OJ Simpson has yet you all judge him so harshly.
Brown and Goldman family (real immoral people)
Yeah, they are the most immoral people in the world considering their respective son and daughter were killed!
Remember that your Pope during the Civil War sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns when he was in prison. Davis defended slavery and killed more people than two immoral people who destroyed a family yet the Pope sympathized with him.
Proof, please?
Or did you rely on some made-up anti-Catholic rubbish your kind (i.e., the anti-Catholic maggot) resorts to?
There was some sympathetic communication between the than truncated Vatican and the Confederacy.
There was some sympathetic communication between the than truncated Vatican and the Confederacy.
Gosh, that sure is indisuptable proof there!
I’ll freely admit that I don’t know what crosses OJ Simpson bears. However, Calvin seems altogether too ready to judge the late Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and their families, without considering what crosses they may have borne. And I simply think that the book/TV show idea was disgusting and in the absolute worst possible taste. I’m glad they were scrapped.
I don’t know anything about sympathetic communication between the Vatican and the Confederacy. I will say that I’m doubtful that any infallible teachings were made that dealt with the Civil War. God never promised that our leaders would be perfect. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Even if Calvin’s assertions are true (of which I confess I’m skeptical), I seriously doubt they were made ex cathedra. Some credible documentation of the allegations would be appreciated.
if Calvin’s assertions are true (of which I confess I’m skeptical)
Don’t even believe it!
I’ve seen anti-Catholic websites that actually claim that the Vatican was involved in the assasination of Abraham Lincoln!
All these things are anti-Catholic propaganda; not to mention, ridiculous!
scum
Michael: November 16, 2006 “Dang Double Jeopardy Law.” I think you’ll see that Jimmy was extremely tolerant of Calvin.
@#$%&! I posted it on the wrong thread!
From MSNBC.com:
http://www.cagle.com/news/OJDidIt/main.asp