Ok, let's put everything on record here:
You agree that:
1. OJ was acquitted fair and square by our court according to the rule of law.
2. The decision by the court that made OJ innocent of the murder charges conflicts with your belief that OJ should've been guilty as charged, in other words...
If you want to argue on the point of technicality, then let's do so:
Did or didn't you say "OJ was acquitted fair and square" by the court? I didn't put anything extra in your mouth, you said it! Now apparently you are trying to back out and say you don't agree with the "fair and square"...
The hypocrisy is apparent. You agreed with the court's decision and concludes that "OJ was acquitted fair and square", then your opinion that you think OJ was guilty directly conflicts what you have stated a moment ago.
Maybe I should take that back, hypocrisy is not the correct term here. A...
Back from lunch, so here we go again :)
If you read carefully, jjones is the one who used legality to argue that Halliburton won fair and square. Well OJ and Clinton were all acquitted in the court of law, therefore it is only reasonable for me to question him whether he thinks the court's...
Yes, I suppose you also believe OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone then? Clinton didn't have sexual relationship with Monica? In both cases they were all legally acquitted, that's fair and square right?
Winning it legally does not equate to winning it fair and square.
Fair and square means open bidding, every company that is capable of rebuilding Iraq should be allowed to bid.
If Haliburton really is such a capable company as many seem to suggest, then what are they afraid of if the...
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.