Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2015, 01:23 PM
 
684 posts, read 791,676 times
Reputation: 867

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Actually, you redefined your statement when caught in a falsehood. Liberal revisionist tactic.
I am far from Liberal. But true Liberal revisionist tactics are actual Liberal politicians who masquerade as right wing Conservatives. And there's many, many.

How exactly did I redefine my statement? What falsehood was I caught in? Bush showed up to jury duty. And all the national media showed was his photo op with several minorities. What's falsehood and redefining about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2015, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,588 posts, read 84,818,250 times
Reputation: 115120
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I happen to agree with you but how many posts have been written with some form of "only stupid people can't get out of jury duty"? And then people wonder why juries sometimes go off the reservation.
I see that all the time, and it's a moronic remark.

I was on a murder trial jury 21 years ago. The people who were on my jury were not stupid. What we WERE were people who would still get paid while on jury duty or who didn't have to show up for work/were retired, so the judge wouldn't excuse them if it was a hardship to their company, only if it was a financial hardship to them personally.

I work in the public sector. On my jury were two post office employees, another person in public transportation like myself, a chemist, a guy who worked for AT&T, a teacher, and a couple of retired people. None of these people were stupid. They took their charge seriously, weighed the evidence, and asked questions. And little Frankie's got nine years more minimum to serve before he can apply for parole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 06:37 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,556,977 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Missouri View Post
I am far from Liberal. But true Liberal revisionist tactics are actual Liberal politicians who masquerade as right wing Conservatives. And there's many, many.

How exactly did I redefine my statement? What falsehood was I caught in? Bush showed up to jury duty. And all the national media showed was his photo op with several minorities. What's falsehood and redefining about that?
The actual reason that he showed up, which you do no know and choose to invent one of your own. Redefining his motivation. Simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 06:40 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,556,977 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
The "large portion" consisted of middle class to upper and white.

But farm kids poor kids and blacks to the jungle you go.

So are you claiming that the "poor farm kids and blacks" are not part of the population? Do you know how many not of this demographic volunteered to serve? Or doe that not fit your narrative?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 06:58 PM
 
684 posts, read 791,676 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
The actual reason that he showed up, which you do no know and choose to invent one of your own. Redefining his motivation. Simple.
So redefined my statement has now turned into redefining his motivation? I guess. I'll just move on.

Many celebs do charity work, not for sincerity of heart, but for their public relations image. Cameras, news, the attention etc etc. Bush could have easily gotten out of jury duty. And let's not kid ourselves for one second in thinking that he would have actually been considered to be a juror. He himself knew that. But he showed up anyways. Nice little pr stunt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 08:28 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Missouri View Post
So redefined my statement has now turned into redefining his motivation? I guess. I'll just move on.

Many celebs do charity work, not for sincerity of heart, but for their public relations image. Cameras, news, the attention etc etc. Bush could have easily gotten out of jury duty. And let's not kid ourselves for one second in thinking that he would have actually been considered to be a juror. He himself knew that. But he showed up anyways. Nice little pr stunt.
You do not know a thing about jury duty.

He didn't bring a camera crew, someone there asked for his picture. Once word got out at the courthouse many people came by for the same.

It doesn't matter if you are likely to get dismissed, you still have to go. If you are a judge, you still have to go to jury duty. If you are running for a political office, you still have to go. If you are a famous athlete you still have to go.

Why not congratulate Bush, like everyone else that takes time out of their busy day, for doing his civic duty and serving as a juror of ones peer instead of trying to find some anterior motive to bash Bush because you are so partisan that you cannot help yourself.

Frankly, Bush is everything I want in an ex president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 09:35 PM
 
684 posts, read 791,676 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
You do not know a thing about jury duty.

He didn't bring a camera crew, someone there asked for his picture. Once word got out at the courthouse many people came by for the same.

It doesn't matter if you are likely to get dismissed, you still have to go. If you are a judge, you still have to go to jury duty. If you are running for a political office, you still have to go. If you are a famous athlete you still have to go.

Why not congratulate Bush, like everyone else that takes time out of their busy day, for doing his civic duty and serving as a juror of ones peer instead of trying to find some anterior motive to bash Bush because you are so partisan that you cannot help yourself.

Frankly, Bush is everything I want in an ex president.
Any celeb or politician who shows up anywhere, knows what's going to happen. You really think Bush was just going to stand there amongst the crowd, and nothing happen. Any politician, whether Rep or Dem, I wouldn't "congratulate" or praise them for doing anything as simple as going to jury duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top