Yeah...you gotta wonder whose worse. OJ, the publisher, or Fox. Oy veh!
Printable View
Yeah...you gotta wonder whose worse. OJ, the publisher, or Fox. Oy veh!
It was bad enough he wrote a book (And someone published it) but the fact that Fox will give him 2-hours of airtime sickens me. [img]mad.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quote:
O.J. Simpson to discuss killings
2 hours, 36 minutes ago
In a new TV interview and book, O.J. Simpson discusses how he would have committed the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend "if I did it."
The two-part television interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29 on Fox, the TV network said Tuesday.
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."
"This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen. Its the definitive last chapter in the Trial of the Century," Mike Darnell, executive vice president of alternative programming for Fox, said in a statement.
The interview, conducted with book publisher Judith Regan, will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed," the network said.
The book is published by ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers run by Regan.
Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.
Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not returned Tuesday night.
__________________
Gross. I can't believe people would buy his book and support this behavior. I hope it flops big time.
I caught some of Bill OReilly's show last night, he was furious at Fox TV airing the interview and told people to boycott their sponsers?
Anyone get this? Aren't they the same company?
Well, as Keith Olbermann said about the insane Bill O'Reilly: "There are two types of people. Those who have been boycotted by Bill O'Reilly and those who will be in the future." (paraphased)
Why do you even listen to that asshat?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">flipping through the channels! i did stop when i heard him talking about OJ, because I was wondering if he was going to wiggle out of Fox interviewing him. I watched him on Oprah last week too.Quote:
Originally posted by funkycamper:
Well, as Keith Olbermann said about the insane Bill O'Reilly: "There are two types of people. Those who have been boycotted by Bill O'Reilly and those who will be in the future." (paraphased)
Why do you even listen to that asshat?
he is an ass.
I wonder if I'm a dreaded SP?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 17, 2006 01:25 PM: Message edited by: senorina ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SP? [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]Quote:
I wonder if I'm a dreaded SP?
SP? Are you referring to our favorite poster on teh old LCF Politics Board, SavannahPair? [img]smile.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no, a Secular Progressive.Quote:
Originally posted by maddercow:
SP? Are you referring to our favorite poster on teh old LCF Politics Board, SavannahPair? [img]smile.gif[/img]
He said on Oprah that the SPs are ruining the country and his book Culture Warrior is about how the country is at war between SPs and...whatever his side is.
That's pretty funny.. Is an SP or secular progressive a pejorative term in his world?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">well when I have some time later today I am going to his website to take the test and see if I am one.Quote:
Originally posted by maddercow:
That's pretty funny.. Is an SP or secular progressive a pejorative term in his world?
I'll let you know.
I'll put some money on YOU being one though [img]smile.gif[/img]
OK - I took the test!!!
here it is, its only 5 questions. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]
http://www.billoreilly.com/quiz?acti...ity/cwtest.jsp
I lean towards being a warrier.
I wonder if I'm happy about that?
Based on the answers you gave...
You are an S-P.
Woohoo...
Fox TV cancelled the interview.
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
What a silly quiz! Considering the source, I'm not surprised.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and [Luke 12:33; 16:9; Acts 2:45; 4:34] sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have [Matt 6:20] treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."Quote:
1. Do you believe in "income redistribution"--that is, the government taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate in order to fund entitlements to the less well off?
Since when did caring for the poor become the exclusive concern of non-Christians?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are Christian ministers who perform "marriage" ceremonies for homosexuals. There is still great debate on this in the religious community. So, agreeing that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is hardly a purely secular position.Quote:
2. Do you believe the definition of marriage should include homosexuals?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't know that torture was supposed to be a Christian value either.Quote:
3. Do you think suspected terrorists captured overseas are entitled to Geneva Convention protections-that is, the same rights that military people are afforded?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What tripe! The USA, in general, is not harmful to the world yet many of our current policies are. So I really couldn't answer this question at all. To answer either way means that either the USA has always been and always will be harmful to the rest of the world or that we have never been such. No in-between. No thinking person can answer simply yes or no unless they have absolutely no knowledge of history or current events. Throughout history, we have had a mix of both. Sometimes the scale is weighted more toward one side and sometimes more towards the other but this is not, and could never be, a black-and-white issue.Quote:
4. Do you believe that the USA, in general, is harmful to the world?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have such mixed feelings on this issue, and definitely see both sides of the argument, that it was impossible for me to answer. In order to protect those girls who live in abusive families and may suffer horrible wrath for being sexually active, not to mention for getting pregnant, or who live with parents who would never allow an abortion even if that was the girl's choice, or who would force her to have an abortion even if she would choose to keep the child...well, too many variables. If I had to vote, I would probably vote on allowing them confidentiality. However, I hardly think this is a Christian vs. Secular issue either as I'm definitely a Christian.Quote:
5. Are you against states legally mandating that parents be informed when their underage daughters have abortions?
OK....I know I'm on a rant here but I hate these simplistic, either-or types of quizzes based on delusional and misguided statements with little basis in fact.