Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
This is heresy, I know: She certainly is lovely, but those are not great legs. Kind of heavy, don’t you think? Of course, there’s a lot of good stuff to hold up….
The Stephen Colbert green screen challenge to make McCain interesting has borne considerable fruit. Go to YouTube and check it out. There is so much creativity on the liberal side of the blogoshpere that is only matched on the right by hatred.
Repack Rider:
Why do you think so many creative people are or lean Democratic? we don’t march in lockstep. That’s why. Democrats are not top down like the Republicans.
re Susan Atkins: There is no way they should release her. Despite her problems, it would be a miscarriage of justice if they let her out just because of her health problems. Let her die in jail.
Life in prison means life in prison, yes?
After looking at the photograph you posted of Kim Kardashian I decided to Google her name and find out what is her claim to fame. I discovered, as you probably already know, is that she is famous for being famous. Sort of like Zsa Zsa Gabor. I thought that she actually might have a talent for more than self-promotion but I was wrong.
John McCain is a danger to himself and others.
PT: She, like Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and the entire cast of The Hills are famous for being oxygen thieves. They serve no purpose whatsoever, except as distractions, and embody America’s Attention Deficit Disorder.
But hey, R.Kelly got acquitted for pissing on a 14 year old, so what do I know?
I’m praying McCain hooks up with Romney. Two craven, unprincipled opportunists on the same ticket. Weathervane heaven, a Youtube festival!
“But hey, R.Kelly got acquitted for pissing on a 14 year old, so what do I know?”
It’s come to the point that celebrities can’t be found guilty of anything, regardless of the level of evidence.
Pick an issue. Odds are McCain backs all sides of it. Oh, except Iraq. There he wants an endless occupation but doesn’t want anyone to notice.
Remember when that little girl was dying and her father, who was in prison for drugs and less than a year from release, tried to get a compassionate release to be with his daughter? He didn’t get it. He got twenty minutes. (My site.)
No, Kim Kardashian is not like Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Those girl aren’t even in the same league as Kim Kardashian. They are girls that, if they weren’t rich, wouldn’t even get looked at twice. Kim Kardashian is pretty hot, especially if you like curvier women.
The Evidence against R.Kelley was actually fairly shitty. A grainy video-tape where nobody can actually see any details, you can’t make out the faces of the participants, and where both R.Kelley and the alleged victim both say it isn’t them on the tape; thats not real evidence of anything. It would be difficult to get a conviction under those circumstances no matter who the defendant was.
Kim Kardashian is pretty hot, especially if you like curvier women.
Okay, I like women who have hips but Kardashian’s claim to fame seems to be based on this fact alone rather than having any real talent.
“The Evidence against R.Kelley was actually fairly shitty.”
Yes, but then the trial judge would not allow the prosecution to introduce evidence that Kelly had paid settlements to four other underage girls who he had been accused of having sexual relationships with. So even if we agree that the evidence in this case was shaky – the alleged victim who is Kelly’s goddaughter refused to testify – can we agree that Kelly has a problem?
Can someone tell me what Kelley Hazel, Gemma Atkinson, or Lucy Pinder actually do other than being hot and having really nice bodies? I mean, if you’re going to single out Kim Kardashian, you really do have to point out that she’s hardly unique. Being famous because men like to look at you in a bikini isn’t anything new, and it’s not likely to ever go away.
And yeah, Kelly probably has a problem. There’s still something unsettling about progressives in general screaming and howling that R.Kelly didn’t get convicted based on almost no evidence simply because he was accused of a crime against a child. We have something like a 95% conviction rate in this country, it’s hard to come to the conclusion that we let too many people off.
Soullite -
I did not single out Kim Kardashian. There was a link to a photograph of her posted to this site. I clicked on the link because I did not know who she was or why a photograph of her was linked. I looked at the photograph and, later, Googled her name. The names Kelley Hazel, Gemma Atkinson and Lucy Pinder don’t mean anything to me at all. What do they do? Do they actually do anything? I didn’t even know the Cosby Show was on television until its second or third season.
I’m not screaming and hollering about R. Kelly but you can’t be seriously arguing that he does not have a problem. I greatly revere Miles Davis but it is a fact that he was physically abusive toward women. He was never charged or convicted of anything having to do with assaulting a woman but that does not mean that he did not assault them.
Noticed my URL to Yahoo News was excluded here. Is this verboten, Oliver? Or falling under the heading of “get your own damn blog?”
Could I maybe reference the “political” headline on Yahoo
McCain Seen As Best Choice for Economy
which, as I said, is guaranteed to give the reader whiplash. Seems Wall Street is somewhat schizoid on the race.
One factor to consider in regard to releasing inmates is how much it costs the prison system to treat them. I work at a prison and know a bit about this, so imagine if someone had to be given medical care, had to be watched by armed officers at all times, had to be transported to a medical facility each and every time there was a treatment that couldn’t be handled by prison medical staff, and had to be treated by hospital staff that gets extra money for working with dangerous convicted felons who are much more likely than free people to have Hepatitis C, HIV, tuberculosis, pneumonia, staph infections, and a whole assortment of things that are systemic to prisons. Some inmates with Hepatitis C require very expensive treatments and are even eligible for liver transplants. And that’s not to mention the many old inmates with diabetes, prostate, joint, dental, skin, and other ailments that come with age and hard living.
Most life sentences are well deserved. I know firsthand what real (read: not Paris Hilton, but actual murderous scumbag losers) wastes of skin and oxygen are, and sometimes I wonder if they really have to be treated for medical ailments. But they have rights, those rights must be met with actions, and we free people have the right to question whether life sentences are always worth it. I can’t be entirely objective or subjective on the subject, and I’m unsure how I really feel about it, but I know one thing: I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions.
“And yeah, Kelly probably has a problem. There’s still something unsettling about progressives in general screaming and howling that R.Kelly didn’t get convicted based on almost no evidence simply because he was accused of a crime against a child.”
Almost no evidence? He video taped the act. And while the victim refused to testify, the victim’s family did and they were able to make a positive I.D.
How can you say there was almost no evidence.
If he wasn’t famous, he would have been sent to jail for a long, long time.
From what I understand the video evidence was fuzzy at best. I think he’s probably guilty, but I don’t think the prosecution proved their case – famous or not.
“From what I understand the video evidence was fuzzy at best. I think he’s probably guilty, but I don’t think the prosecution proved their case – famous or not.”
She refuses to testify but several relatives look at the tape and say, ‘Yeah, that’s her.’ If it really wasn’t her, why didn’t the defense call her to the witness stand?
The defense didn’t call her to the stand because, since she is the alleged victim, she’s a prosecution witness. It’s the job of the prosecution to establish guilt, and they failed.
“The defense didn’t call her to the stand because, since she is the alleged victim, she’s a prosecution witness.”
The defendant has the right to question the accuser in a court of law. That’s first year stuff.
“It’s the job of the prosecution to establish guilt, and they failed.”
The girl in the video was positively identified by several family members, who should be experts in this field. If that doesn’t represent establishing guilt, then no one should be found guilty, ever.
Remember, it doesn’t matter if R. Kelly is in the video or not, he would still be guilt of possessing child pornography.
The defendant has many rights, but the prosecution has responsibilities. That’s not even first year stuff.
“The defendant has many rights, but the prosecution has responsibilities. That’s not even first year stuff.”
Two points:
1.) Don’t act snarky because I was able to counter your argument.
2.) And a positive identification by several family members should be enough. Many cases won’t have more evidence than that, because in many cases the victim can’t testify. If this isn’t enough evidence to convict R. Kelly, then practically no murderer could ever been convicted.
RE: R. Kelly
1. This case should not have taken 6 years to go to trial.
2. Four family members said it was her, and three said it was not.
3. Of those three, two were her parents.
4. R. Kelly is a pedophile as evidenced by his marriage to Aaliyah when she was 15.
5. The Prosecution could not come up with a compelling argument regarding the man on the tape’s mole on the back, and the fact that R. Kelly did not have one.
6. Why would the alleged victim take the stand for anyone besides the defense in this case, especially since she claims it is not her.
7. THe prosecution had to establish not only that Kelly was involved, but the victim was involved since they both denied it.
8. Sometimes justice is blind, just like the statue.
9. I think he did it too given his track record…unfortunately and fortunately it takes more than that in America.
@ C.S. Strowbridge
“Remember, it doesn’t matter if R. Kelly is in the video or not, he would still be guilt of possessing child pornography.”
Unfortunately you are wrong. The tape was mailed anonymously to a newspaper, the item was not found in his living quarters, and allegedly the backdrop to the sex scene was not identifiable in any of R. Kelly’s houses.
“4. R. Kelly is a pedophile as evidenced by his marriage to Aaliyah when she was 15.”
Pedophilia means prepubescent children. 15-year olds are not prepubescent. The correct term is hebephilia or ephebophilia. I tend to be anal when it comes to the definition of words.
“6. Why would the alleged victim take the stand for anyone besides the defense in this case, especially since she claims it is not her.”
Victims not wanting to be on the stand is quite common and I can see why the prosecution wouldn’t call her to testify. But the fact that the defense didn’t strikes me as very odd. The only reason not to is if you know it’s her and your client in the video and you ask her to deny it because either she tells the truth and you are screwed or she lies and you can be disbarred.
“Unfortunately you are wrong.”
Are you sure about that? It was my understanding it was in his possession. That does change matters. Or at the very least, similar items were found.