A simple poll - Did Roger Clemens take Steroids/HGH

And if not, they grow up to be politicians and subpoena baseball players to testify about activities that aren't even illegal.

 

I am the only one has voted, so far, that Clemens has not taked Steroids/HGH. I just cant believe McNamee. He is an admitted liar and the one congressman called him out on all his lies and all McNamee did was just sit there and say that he lied to them about that and that and that.

 

No, I'm completely lying when I say "I don't know".

 

It's all JVG fault!!!! VSpan just needs more minutes!!!! Why can't he have a chance!!!!

 

i wondered how many of those guys were lawyers...because some of them were just awful at framing understandable questions.

 

remember...those lies don't count, so you should believe everything he says.

 

So does this apply to everyone too? If you hear a story about a baseball player, you make no opinions of your own? If you read a story in the newspaper about a woman accused of drowning her 5 kids, you have no reaction to it, and simply say "well, it may or may not be true"? Since you don't really know all the facts of the spygate scandal, you have no opinions on that?

 

i can definitely say that's true of me regarding spygate. i don't know. i could believe either way.

but it's not that simple...because in this instance we've had stuff paraded before us pretending to be a evidentiary presentation. so on the surface we look at it...but we haven't seen it crossed...and we have no idea as to its reliability. someone produces needles and the assumption is, "well, roger did it!"

 

Well, I'm starting to believe you have trouble with basic comprehension.

Got that?

In other words (and try to keep up here), I don't *have* to maintain an opinion or belief on this situation--even if I'm interested in the proceeding events. I don't have enough information. Neither outcome would surprise me.

I'm sorry if that's so hard for you to grasp (and so it appears, as you equate that to "lack of stones").

 

I have no opinion on spygate. There was a *ton* of evidence about the woman who drowned her kids, so that's a bad analogy.

 

Sure - but did you not have an opinion until after the trial and all of the evidence was put up in a court of law? You had no reaction to it whatsoever when you first read the story or at any point before the conclusion of the trial?

 

some cases are different than others. most cases never make it to trial...because the facts are overwhelmingly one way or the other. that's not what we're talking about here.

 

Do you have a list of names on the panel? I checked the ones I remembered, and 3 out of 4 (including Waxman himself) were lawyers.

 

But you had a problem with people making judgments even before the evidence and all the hoopla of the last several weeks - when it was the equivalent to an accusation. I guess what I'm asking is if this applies to other circumstances. Take any newspaper or ESPN article you read - do you automatically make no judgments until you're able to get all the facts (which never happens)?

You've accused Congress here of a spectacle and that it's clearly not about the kids. What evidence do you have of that? Or is it an opinion you came up with based on your knowledge of the facts that you can see? And why is it OK to have that opinion and make judgments about Congress, but it's not OK to take what we know and make judgments about Clemens?

That's the part I don't understand - we make judgments and form opinions about everyone and everything all the time without any kind of rigorous examination of the evidence. You do it when you meet someone and talk to them for 5 minutes and have an initial impression of them. It's not built around knowing all the details of that person, but if they are really nice or really mean in those first 5 minutes, it affects how you treat them and your relationship with them. Why is it OK to form these opinions, but not one about Roger that won't even affect him?

 

Of course I had a reaction! Are you ready for it? It was, "those poor children!" It was *not* "she's GUILTY!!!"

You're grasping at some desperate straws here, Major.

 

Fair enough - most people had a different reaction. Some combination of "what's wrong with her?", "she's crazy", and "how evil".

 

All of those were reasonable assumptions but they were assumptions. I don't like to assume.

 

Of course, for that case, it was obvious she did it because didn't she call 911 herself?

I think there are plenty of times where people make judgment after not hearing all the evidence or waiting for trial. But when the evidence is based around one not-so-trustworthy source, I don't see the big deal in not forming an opinion about it until seeing more evidence or having the evidence better explained.