Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sly
When a crime is committed in your city, who exactly do you expect to investigate it that you'll actually believe?
You don't trust the government. Thats fine. You don't trust the media. Thats fine. You don't trust some Internet movie guy. Thats fine too.
If you don't trust anybody, who would you actually trust? What person would you actually believe if they came up to you and said "hey, yep, old Osama did it again"?
You say common sense, but thats really pretty naive. "Common sense" is only as common and true as you want it to be. Facts have to come in to play somewhere. But from who?
|
I would believe it if I saw the evidence myself, and/or I would believe a jury of 12 Americans who convicted him based on evidence provided. I would not blindly take any man at his word. If a murder is commited, and the DA says, so and so is guilty, trust me, that's not good enough for me. It's also not good enough for my country, as per the Constituation and Bill of Rights.
This is why I use the word blindly. If you don't know what they're basing their conclusions on, you are blindly accepting them at their word.
If someone tells me the score of the Mets game, I'll blindly take them at their word. If someone tells me who was responsible for the worst crime in American history, which the government has used as an excuse for a radical change in our foriegn policy and to restrict our civil rights at home, I need more than someone's word.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? The vast majority of middle/upper class New Yorkers think the exact same way. There was a Zogby poll after the bs "9/11 commission" came out that showed 70 million Americans wanted a real investigation. I guess people from fly over country don't care enough to demand real answers.