MLB wants Dodgers(Ohtani) vs Yankees(Judge) - NFL/Goodell helped the Chiefs

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You've actually spouted more than enough nonsense in this thread already.



I was never a Steelers fan.



I am though a big fan of the presumption of innocence which is the fundamental cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence provides us all with an absolutely essential bulwark against malicious prosecution by an otherwise essentially omnipotent State. A Soviet style legal system wherein charges equate to guilt would be a nightmare (except to those who'd usher our society toward totalitarianism). Therefore with no conviction, Ben Roethlisberger is innocent; case closed. And like I say, I've never liked the Steelers but that's irrelevant to the principle in question.

Innocent? Please. Did you follow this when it happened? It never went to trial so there is no "Innocent". He paid her off, FACT. Look it up. You don't pay someone off if you are innocent. He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?.....Not only was he GUILTY, or if you don't want to use the word Guilty, use the words HE DID IT, pretty sure he did it another time as well, it wasn't the only sexual assault claim against him. You can reply all you want I'm done speaking that dickwads name.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Innocent? Please. Did you follow this when it happened? It never went to trial so there is no "Innocent". He paid her off, FACT. Look it up. You don't pay someone off if you are innocent. He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?.....Not only was he GUILTY, or if you don't want to use the word Guilty, use the words HE DID IT, pretty sure he did it another time as well, it wasn't the only sexual assault claim against him. You can reply all you want I'm done speaking that dickwads name.

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Some people, usually those with lots of money and power, have more protections then others.

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent, and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No exceptions?

Justice can be perverted, and is on a regular basis... and likely very few on here will even agree on the way it's been perverted, or who the alleged "perverts" actually are, given the individual circumstances, but most will agree... it's most definitely been perverted.

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

hahahahahaha!!!!


......and T Swift.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent....

Yes, clearly. The logic is inescapable. A man IS innocent until and unless convicted in an unbiased court of law.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No exceptions?

How can there be? The logic is inescapable.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

...and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No I do not! And that's what frightens me and why I refuse to countenance any undermining of the principle. Despite the principle, there are far too many cases of the innocent being convicted and punished. I could name you several horrifying examples in relatively recent history in my own provincial jurisdiction alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court. Using the term to mean, did he do it or not, obviously many guilty people go free. Now that may be a price worth paying for the type of justice system we want, but denying that it happens makes no sense.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court.

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

[packs]

A courtroom verdict is the opinion of the jury. It is true that a person found innocent or guilty was found innocent or guilty. It is also true that the jury's opinion does not establish fact or actual guilt or innocence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

I haven't set foot in Ohio in decades LOL. And you clearly do not understand the legal system. That the state may not be able to persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, with admissible evidence, that a defendant is guilty does not mean they did not commit the crime. Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant to be found not guilty by a criminal jury but then to be found liable for the same act by a civil jury.

Again, if you DEFINE innocent as not found guilty, then sure you're right, but that is completely circular.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Innocence is bought, every day of the week. So is guilt.

Agree with you on Taylor Swift though.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Lighten up Francis........go drink a Molson.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Innocent? ... He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?

You though were the one who highjacked a Yankees-Dodgers thread to argue that the NFL with its commissioner Roger Goodell is corrupt from the top down. So logically the NFL's take on any such matters wouldn't be one you'd trust. But intellectual consistency doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Lighten up Francis....

Sorry. I'm not much on Hollywood culture references. But you can of course go ahead and impress others with your "learned" comments.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

go drink a Molson.

While I was born and raised in Labatt country where old union members such as my father quaffed full bodied ales:



I nonetheless have to give credit to Molson for not bastardizing their brews with the addition of rice and corn which is a common practice south of the border. All things considered, you're therefore well advised to steer clear of beer references.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You though were the one who highjacked a Yankees-Dodgers thread to argue that the NFL with its commissioner Roger Goodell is corrupt from the top down. So logically the NFL's take on any such matters wouldn't be one you'd trust. But intellectual consistency doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

I hijacked a thread? How about you stop dumbing up threads by jumping in when you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion. 1. I started the thread, so I hijacked my own thread? 2. As I stated you jump into threads just to voice your opinion that nobody cares about because you like to try to sound knowledgeable but do the exact opposite. Go back and look at when I started this thread very early on I mentioned the Chiefs getting "preferrred treatment" in 2023. So try to read threads from the beginning so you don't out your own stupidity. It might save you from irrelevant comments just to be heard.

Now I know you'll come back with something you "think" is a brilliant comeback but it will fall well short of a 1st down and be a turnover on downs.

[Carter08]

https://x.com/_mlfootball/status/188...0277?s=42&mx=2

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I hijacked a thread?

1. I started the thread, so I hijacked my own thread?

You went from one silly rant to an unrelated but equally silly rant in a different sport in the same thread. I suppose if you retitled this thread "My silly rants!" it might make sense but....

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

How about you stop dumbing up threads by jumping in when you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Truthfully when it comes to dumbness nobody here can even come close to matching the conspiracy rants which you like to post.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

As I stated you jump into threads just to voice your opinion that nobody cares about because you like to try to sound knowledgeable but do the exact opposite.... It might save you from irrelevant comments just to be heard.

Excuse me but I've contributed more to discussions on cards and collectibles in just one post than you've contributed since you've been here. Show me even one good post you've done!

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You went from one silly rant to an unrelated but equally silly rant in a different sport in the same thread. I suppose if you retitled this thread "My silly rants!" it might make sense but....



Truthfully when it comes to dumbness nobody here can even come close to matching the conspiracy rants which you like to post.



Excuse me but I've contributed more to discussions on cards and collectibles in just one post than you've contributed since you've been here. Show me even one good post you've done.

I don't even know what to make your nonsense. Feel free to stay out of threeads I create. Go play elsewhere. You're just muddying up threads.

Focus on the Chiefs.

Very good video posted by Carter08 above the nonsense from BalticFox I suggest watching it. More evidence/proof.

...................................
Radically American!