Random tidbits

Nov 07, 2006 16:09

First off, just have to share ( Read more... )

dialogue, ali, humor, politics, current events

Leave a comment

igorlord November 7 2006, 17:32:26 UTC
"I'd probably even vote for DuPatrick over the drunk, he only helps murderers after the fact."

So you think that trying to stand up for someone's rights, even if he is accused of a murder, is a bad thing?

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 17:36:35 UTC
mm, not accused, found guilty, and later re-proven with DNA evidence. Yes, I find knee-jerk support just cuz he's a black dude a bad thing.

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 18:00:38 UTC
Well, when the murderer in question was proved to be a murderer via DNA, Patric dropped his support, as far as I know. Am I wrong here?

Before, there was certainly a quesion of his guilt. Patric was far from he only well-known person supporting additional tests, like DNA tests.

Yes, I also find extra attension and advocacy paid to some group of people undesirable, especially if I am not included in that group (I'm white). That's why I voted for Christy Mihos.

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 18:09:03 UTC
From what i heard, the advocating continued after the DNA test, and that's what the uproar, if you can call it that, is really about.

>>Yes, I also find extra attension and advocacy paid to some group of people undesirable, especially if I am not included in that group (I'm white).
Really, you're white?? I thought you were Semitic!
Seriously, supporting a murderer when there's no question of guilt, or while guilt is asssumed pending DNA evidence is an example of why the NAACP is not working in minority interests anymore.

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 18:15:07 UTC
NAACP is very sensitive about individual rights. And so I am, too. There is/should be no assumption of guilt "pending evidence". Not in this country. If the evidence used to convict him is deemed insuffecient, there cannot be an assumption of guilt!

As fo rwhen he dropped his support, I watched an interview with Patric. He said that he dropped his support immediately after the DNA evidence.

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 18:42:48 UTC
I hope you're not saying that it is impossible to prove someone is a murderer if DNA is not available. The man was found guilty in court, and there was no real question, except by LaGuer. Why should someone assume he is not guilty? I can perhaps understand asking for the DNA test, but not giving him ref letters before he'd be proved not guilty, and then lying as to the extent of his involvement.

I certainly hope he dropped his support after the DNA evidence came in!

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 18:56:26 UTC
Wait! LaGuer is NOT a murderer!

Let's merge this into a single thread: http://bublik64.livejournal.com/54409.html?thread=314761#t314761

Reply

bloguser November 7 2006, 18:38:04 UTC
What bothers me is that he wrote to the parole board in support of LaGuer defending his character based on nothing but corresponding with him by mail. Then tried to wiggle out of it saying that it was "a letter", 10 or 15 years ago (both lies) and never telling the whole story unless forced to. All seems too sleazy for my taste ( ... )

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 18:54:31 UTC
He wrote a letter to the parole board and called it a letter. What's a lie?

Yes, I find it strange that he is willing to vouch for a man besed solely on him correspondance, but, at least, he clearly identified the extent of his aquantance in the letter to the board.

It does seem like he took up a wrong cause. But why did he do it? Why did other prominent figures took up that cause, too? What does it say about Patrick?

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 19:03:42 UTC
http://rope.wrko-am.fimc.net/howie/letter3.gif

Actually, read the first paragraph here (do not worry about the second one). It looks like there was a serious concern about a wrongful conviction. (How justified that concern was, I do not know. But an indication thet many other people have taken on LaGuer's cause mean that the concern was not trivial.)

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 20:05:55 UTC
merging: oops. forgot, rapist and torturer, much better.

and the lies involved saying he had no relation to the case in 10 or 15 years, and then we found out the last letter was relatively recent, less than five years ago, I think.

Reply

igorlord November 7 2006, 20:45:12 UTC
About 6 years ago.

Well, I would not go into calling it lies. Look at the two letters!

http://rope.wrko-am.fimc.net/howie/letter3.gif
http://rope.wrko-am.fimc.net/howie/letter4.gif

It is the same letter, word-for-word (except for the date). He probably just instructed his secretary to find and resend it.

Total time spent on it: less than 1 minute. It's natural if he forgot about that (he probably deals with lots of correspondance thid way).

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 20:48:44 UTC
and that kind of attention is supposed to make me want to elect him governor? He did a thoughtless, careless, thing, he then tried to hush it up in a stupid way - what's to be proud of?

Reply

aite November 7 2006, 20:52:58 UTC
Sure the incident doesn't make him look good, but the fact that it's the worst dirt the Healey compaign could find on him does :)

Reply

bublik64 November 7 2006, 20:57:29 UTC
And what's the worst dirt on Healey? She isn't personally charming and runs a really inept campaign that a kindergartener thought up? :) I just don't get how hugs and smiles translate into 50+% of the vote.

Reply

aite November 7 2006, 21:00:04 UTC
She is a part of the unpopular current administration, that's how she loses the vote. I don't need the dirt. The fact that she digs it up is a minus in my book.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up