Fucking Bullshit - Enron

[Kimstu]

@Jebus

The government just went after them to take away coverage from the war.

Yeah, that worked really well, didn’t it? Hasn’t been a thing about the war in the papers from that day to this. The media’s been so obsessed with the Enron trials that they haven’t even bothered to put reporters in Baghdad.

And I think all you other people here should stop pestering Jebus about what color the sky on his planet is. How in the world can you expect him to answer questions about the sky when he’s sitting in a cave with his eyes squeezed shut?

[tdn]

@Bricker

What do you know that the jury did not know?

That there was a second shooter.

[D_Odds]

Happy, while I’m not doubting that Basil said that, and said it first, I remember it most clearly from A Fish Called Wanda:

Jebus: Don’t call me stupid.
SDMB: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. [We]'ve worn dresses with higher IQs. [We]'ve known [goats] that could outwit you, but you think you’re an intellectual don’t you, ape?
Jebus: Apes don’t [watch The Smartest Men in the Room].
SDMB: Yes, they do Jebus, they just don’t understand it. Now let [us] correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself,’ and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, [Jebus]…

with apologies to the aforementioned film

[Jebus_H.Christ]

@tdn

That there was a second shooter.

This the first I have of any shooters being invovled. Perhaps you whould check your sources for a bias.

[Frank]

@Jebus H. Christ

This the first I have of any shooters being invovled. Perhaps you whould check your sources for a bias.

Would you care to address Bricker’s quite good questions? Here, I’ll help.

@Bricker

Does the OP understand precisely what laws they were accused of breaking?

Can you, jebus, offer a brief outline of what the accused actually did, and why it’s not illegal?

@Bricker

In a criminal trial, the jury is the finder of fact. They hear testimony, weigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and reach a verdict.

This jury heard evidence and resolved any conflicts against the accused. They returned guilty verdicts.

So why are you asking me to substitute your judgement for the jury’s judgement? What do you know that the jury did not know?

In your reply, you might care to include any evidence you have that supports your conclusion.

[Giraffe]

Jebus, I’ve had it with your trolling. This thread is closed, and your posting privileges are under discussion. Any more bullshit threads like this and your banning will be guaranteed.