Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:00 pm
GO BILLS....
Why bother other than to be an jerk?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:59 pmGO BILLS.....Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:50 pmSetting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:45 amI make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:54 amNope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:33 amIs that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:14 amMy metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:58 amNot with Trump.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:16 pmYour perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:56 am yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.
I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.
For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...
And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.
What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.
My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.
But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.
They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.
For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.
And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...
But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?
Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.
You?
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.
My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.
For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?
You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717
When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.
GO BILLS.......Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:06 pmWhy bother other than to be an jerk?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:59 pmGO BILLS.....Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:50 pmSetting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:45 amI make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:54 amNope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:33 amIs that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:14 amMy metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:58 amNot with Trump.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:16 pmYour perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:56 am yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.
I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.
For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...
And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.
What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.
My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.
But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.
They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.
For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.
And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...
But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?
Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.
You?
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.
My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.
For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?
You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717
When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.
Whatever. Nothing worse than a moron who thinks they’re slick. They won’y let go even though they are just accelerating their demise.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:22 pmGO BILLS.......Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:06 pmWhy bother other than to be an jerk?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:59 pmGO BILLS.....Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:50 pmSetting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:45 amI make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:54 amNope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:33 amIs that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:14 amMy metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:58 amNot with Trump.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:16 pmYour perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:56 am yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.
I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.
For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...
And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.
What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.
My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.
But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.
They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.
For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.
And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...
But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?
Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.
You?
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.
My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.
For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?
You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717
When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.
Goeth hence from the presence of those when you perceiveth not the lips of knowledge.
Good luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!
Actually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pmGood luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!
I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.
They cleared the field of snow and parking lots but apparently not the stands and seats.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:41 pmActually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pmGood luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!
I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.
Enough Schnapps and you won't even realize your backside is wet.Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:43 pmThey cleared the field of snow and parking lots but apparently not the stands and seats.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:41 pmActually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 pmGood luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!
I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.
So do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:06 pm “Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”
Hold my beer…..
O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.
What do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:57 amSo do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:06 pm “Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”
Hold my beer…..
O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.
Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.
I'm guessing you and I feel the same way. OJ was found not guilty in a court of law. That is the only opinion that matters. OJs # 32 is still on the ring of honor at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park. I hope it stays there when they move to their new stadium. I always remember OJ the very first time I saw him play running back I believe it was the Rose Bowl in 1968. His blend of speed and elusiveness has not been matched by very many running backs since. In his era Gayle Sayers before he tore up his knee and of course the legendary James Brown who also was a phenomenal lacrosse player.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:30 pmWhat do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:57 amSo do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:06 pm “Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”
Hold my beer…..
O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.
Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.
I have no doubt about his guilt. OJ is an example I use regarding people that committed a crime yet aren’t in jail and there are plenty of people that didn’t comma crime and yet are in jail. Don’t get caught up in the legal system is my advice. OJ Simpson is the best NFL Running Back I have ever seen.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:43 pmI'm guessing you and I feel the same way. OJ was found not guilty in a court of law. That is the only opinion that matters. OJs # 32 is still on the ring of honor at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park. I hope it stays there when they move to their new stadium. I always remember OJ the very first time I saw him play running back I believe it was the Rose Bowl in 1968. His blend of speed and elusiveness has not been matched by very many running backs since. In his era Gayle Sayers before he tore up his knee and of course the legendary James Brown who also was a phenomenal lacrosse player.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:30 pmWhat do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:57 amSo do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:06 pm “Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”
Hold my beer…..
O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.
Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.