Huge revelations, she should consider a similar policy to the one she supports, and some Sanders fans are whiners.
On the other hand a story that was only reported on a Russian propaganda site, and was taken down because the “bad” lines attributed to Podesta were actually quotes from a reporter’s story was repeated word-for-word by Trump at a rally.
Didn’t Debbie Wasserman —- lose her job at the DNC for her affiliation with Hilliary and the destruction of Bernie’s campaign? Hacked emails can be valuable to reveal how hateful and deceiving Hilliary and her minions actually are.
“Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be President.” B.Obama
“She’ll say anything and change nothing.” B.Obama
This leak is just more proof that she has no real positions. Her positions are fluid and based on what she thinks people want to hear. Though I don’t agree with most of what they support, at least Bernie and Pocahontas stand for something.
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! Also, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a 13 year old? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
Trump has enough money to get away with the rape, if he did it, his real legal trouble is with his illegal charity, and using it to bribe prosecutors and for personal gain.
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! And, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a 13 year old? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
That is low Captain. Trump didn’t rape any 13 year old. If it were anything but a rumor spread by low lifes, the democrat’s news channel CNN would be all over it.
BTW, I heard Hilliary ….while Bill snapped Polaroids.
Old Lawman, I wonder what the topic of conversation actually was when Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the end of the runway. Pretty sure it wasn’t about golf or grandchildren.
They talked about Chelsea’s wedding and yoga classes. Bill wondered about women he could pursue at both activities. He asked Lynch not to prosecute him if he were caught doing something illegal at those events.
( Psst! Not true. I just thought I could / should participate in the speculation and wild rumor creation, like everyone else on this thread! :) )
October 12, 2016 at 9:03 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
13
The same pedophile Drumpf is named in a lawsuit with regarding that 13 year old? By the way, Drumpf just used the word “shackles”. Anyone who might be a self-proclaimed deplorable, did you hear the dog whistle when he said that?
If you know how to research why do so many conservatives here post almost exclusively debunked BS?
October 15, 2016 at 8:57 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Example, please.
October 15, 2016 at 8:57 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
clarification: my post above is a reply to actu’s post.
October 17, 2016 at 8:59 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
I am a registered Independent and, frankly, no, I won’t stop. Because, it’s quite obvious many out here do not do any research. The ill-informed out here is astounding.
October 11, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Louie says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
22
15
While you might have put it a little more tastefully, I do have to agree with your message Cap’n. The same people that were gleefully eviscerating Bill Clinton for his indiscretions 20 years ago are the same people that are somehow ok with Trump’s? Really???
HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. He mocks the disabled. He victimizes women, either verbally or admittedly cheats on his wives. He and his businesses gets sued constantly, in some cases for defrauding. He makes deals with the mafia. He makes crude comments about his own daughter. He disrespects veterans. He essentially threatens to start trade wars. He says he won’t support NATO or our allies. He praises Putin. He claims he’s going to create jobs, defeat ISIS, fix Obamacare, but has no real details on how he’ll do any of this, just that he’ll do it. He speaks about his generosity, but nobody can find any of the huge charitable contributions he’s supposedly made.
Then, unfortunately, there’s the question about his association with Jeffery Epstein. Yes, the same Jeffery Epstein who is a convicted sex offender for soliciting sex from a minor, who is suspected of running a massive sex ring where he arranged underaged encounters for his friends. Yep, the same Jeffery Epstein whose plane Bill Clinton has been a guest on (26 TIMES). Except Trump also flew on Epstein’s plane and attended parties at Epstein’s house…numerous times. Folks, the man is SICK. How can anyone defend this?
He is the single biggest problem with the republican party, and why so many have pulled their support. Have you ever seen a candidate in recent history who has so divided their own party?
Please, if you’re a supporter, ask yourself and ask yourself honestly: if Trump were running as a Democrat, what would you think of him?
Trump is a piece of crap and it’s sad that these two are the candidates for president of the US, but he even looks a bit better than Hillary and her husband, the real rapist, womanizer, and murderer, etc. We could go on and on.
but shouldn’t we hold politicians to higher standards? How is any of Trump’s behavior acceptable to the point where you honestly can say, “I’m ok with that, and he still has my support.” You do realize that pretty much everything you despise about Bill Clinton, Trump has also been accused of, and then some (ok, maybe not murder)?
I submit to you that Trump is basically handing Hillary the election, and his supporters are only enabling him. I honestly think he’s the only one whom Hillary can beat. Really does make you have to question if this was his plan all along…he and the Clintons have been friends for quite some time.
Politicians are supposed to represent US. How did it get to this point???
Louie, short answer. Power politics and special interests and money. I tell you, RINO’s are bought and paid for, Progressive Democrats are bought and paid for and these politicians are so corrupt now, they have to do the bidding of the special interests since that is what funds their re-election campaigns. If we looked into the coffers of any of these politicians, we would see where all that money came from. They are really worried that Trump will upset their applecart. You should realize that Trump is pretty much self funded and has not been corrupted by the big money with his campaign. I applaud him for it. Whatever you think of him as a person, he is 100% better than Hilliary and her merry brigade of Progressive Socialists who will further run the country into the ground.
October 12, 2016 at 9:08 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
9
No doubt, Agent, Mr. Drumpf has contributed to his campaign. He has done so in the form of loans, so he is fully expecting to get that money back. And, he has taken millions in donations as well. Let’s not exaggerate anything here.
October 12, 2016 at 3:27 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
Good points planet. I can’t believe how uneducated and uninformed this guy is. Trump has taken in individual donations, private donations, worked with super pacs and taken money from the Republican Party. Most of his supposed self funding has been money to his other companies which he will repay with the loans he takes, or, more likely based on his past, get out from with bankruptcy. One example is how after the campaign when the Republican Party started paying the rent on his campaign operations (not self funded dolts) he drastically increased the rent, which was in a building he owned.
If a person claims Trump is self funded you know that person is an idiot, a liar, or totally uninformed. Agent is all 3.
October 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
2
Not all rape allegations are equal. Some of Clinton’s came before he was high profile and could very well be true.
One of Trump’s only has a book quote that has been said by the victim to be false, and was not in the deposition, and the victim herself said she wasn’t raped.
The other is from what was it, 1994, and is only becoming an issue during a high profile election, just in time to disrupt it, and the attorneys representing the supposed victim are not releasing any evidence to the public.
Trump and Clinton are not equal here.
As for his comments about women, well, I’m going to sound horrible for a moment here:
Even some of the best men I have known, have spoken about getting some similar to Trump. It’s a bragging thing at times, and at others it is around the same time a woman destroyed their self confidence and they are trying to believe they could get anyone they want. In Trump’s case I’m thinking it has more to do with wanting to believe he can have any woman he wants, but regardless, this is not the worst thing for someone to say.
Wanting to have sex with women, and saying women like to be touched and pursued, is hardly the worst thing someone can say or do.
Liberals are backwards on this. They claim sexual freedom, while they also claim attraction and pursuing a woman is criminal and are comparing that to Bill Clinton’s rape allegations which have far more of a chance of actually being true (though I still doubt them.)
There is no conservative hypocrisy here. Rape claims are not equal because someone claimed there was a rape.
You are such a fundamentally dishonest person. Lying Bob. The accusation you continue to lie about was not recanted. Her attorneys have not released the evidence because Trump make her and them sign a non-disclosure agreement. You know this, because I have told you, so when you make the statement you are undeniably lying. People who continually, compulsively lie are liars. Her attorneys have not released the evidence because Trump made them and her sign a non-disclosure agreement. If she did so, or said now it happened, it would cost her millions of dollars; if her attorneys did it they would be disbarred, and also be sued. You continue to lie about this because above all you are a partisan hack. The person who wrote the book you dismiss without reading or looking into has seen the sworn testimony, and it verifies what multiple independent sources say they were told by her. In this case the judge granted the divorce due to cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. That’s not debatable, and it’s largely because of the testimony you lie about.
These new cases are exactly what I presented months ago and you denied despite multiple accusers. They are exactly what he said he did in the recent tapes. You continue to deny everything that doesn’t support your beliefs until the very end.
“Even some of the best men I have known, have spoken about getting some similar to Trump.”
They are called rapists and sexual abusers. They are criminals, and like people who defend them, are degenerate losers. Walking up to a woman and kissing her or grabbing her like Trump and your criminal friends is assault, it can also make a woman afraid to leave, because they are dealing with a criminal psychopath, and then when your friends “get some” for all intents and purposes they are probably raping them. No wonder you are obsessed with “false” rape claims–the “best” people you know seem to be rapists.
“They claim sexual freedom, while they also claim attraction and pursuing a woman is criminal”
No. Going up to a woman and forcing yourself onto them is not pursing somebody, it is in fact, by definition criminal.
Also, I know you are severely confused on almost every issue, but Bill Clinton is not running for president. A lot of confused, deplorable pieces of garbage seem to think he is. I can see how you would think it is the most relevant thing with your backwards views on women, where you view them as property to do what you want to, but that isn’t the case in reality. Also, in the most credible claim of rape against Clinton the accused said:
“These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.” She later changed her story after talking to Drudge. The other two continually lied to investigators, and claimed he had distinguishing marks he did not have; they are almost certainly liars. But, he is not running for president. Trump is, and he has a lot of claims that are all credible, and all match exactly what he said he does.
The people who still support Trump are not just deplorable, they are outright POS. Please Bob, stop lying in every paragraph you write, you have gone completely off the rails and cannot even type coherent sentences with words that are spelled correctly anymore. Deplorables.
Do not ever talk about morals, forcing your BS religion on people, or anything similar, because you are constantly supporting crimes against anybody different than you.
Not at all what that report says. What it does go into is how the US can allow people to exercise their religious freedoms under the First Amendment without infringing on the rights of others. They also don’t support murdering babies; you have to be an idiot, illiterate, or not have read the story or report to think that is what these say.
What you are actually complaining about is not being able to push your beliefs on others, and force them to adhere to your radicalized values. Kind of like you think Iran is doing.
“They also support a Radicalized Islamic Iran that wants to bring death to the indfidels.”
No, clueless, they don’t, or they wouldn’t have forced them to stop pursuing their nuclear program, nor would they have sabotaged it.
Why don’t you grow up? You are making asinine statements and would be better off both to yourself and the world if you just sat in your bathtub all day instead of copying and pasting this hate speech. You are literally almost exactly the same as what you are complaining Iran is in your fantasy world.
I love your classic liberal argument, “I don’t agree with you, so you are an idiot, clueless, illiterate person who needs to grow up.” It makes me laugh. This is why there is no longer civil discourse in America.
Finding #3 in the report specifically says, “3. Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights.” Then in Finding 7, it specifically states “a basic [civil] right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs; and even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties.”
In summary, that means when a religious exemption is permissible it significantly infringes upon civil rights. It also suggests that some civil rights should not be subject to religion and even a ministerial exemption should be subject to review.
When you go on to read the Recommendations section, this commission also suggests beliefs should be protected but not conduct. This is ludicrous to suggest that you cannot conduct yourself according to your religious beliefs.
Now onto murdering babies. You say they do not support murdering babies, yet on page 46 of the Democratic Party Platform, it says “…we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming.” Murder by definition is the premeditated killing of another human being which is exactly what abortion is.
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! And, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a 13 year old girl? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! And, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a thirteen year old girl? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
You are right captain, but there are people here that clearly don’t care about rape very much, & might even support it. Being a Christian or a good person is far behind being a Republican and a so called conservative.
“You are right captain, but there are people here that clearly don’t care about rape very much, & might even support it. Being a Christian or a good person is far behind being a Republican and a so called conservative.”
Bull crap. No one here supports rape.
You have no evidence of Trump raping a 13 year old girl. He just has it in him. Just like you think I support rape for my comments.
Basically how you speak is rape now. You’re demeaning rape.
Also, if you call yourself Christian Planet, you can’t vote for someone who will harm people to the tune of 330,000,000 by their policies, because you don’t like the individual actions of a person.
We judge by policy. Not by character. Jesus didn’t condemn leaders, and even said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and told people to obey the government and it was there to help them. He also called Caesar more or less immoral.
There is plenty of evidence we are to look at the policy and not the person’s actions.
Also, the woman who was nearly stoned for adultery, should we say she is not able to be a politician? I would say any person can be if they have good plans.
You are creating the exact scenario Jesus fought, a group of religious leaders who control the public calling every other leader sinful. Jesus condemned those leaders. Interesting isn’t it?
Even for you this is idiotic. Please stop, you are writing like an idiot.
“We judge by policy. Not by character.”
Bullshit. Or you would support Obama and Clinton over Bush by miles. Also, you aren’t competent or capable of judging by policy because you don’t know policy.
“If we state that Planet is calling a rape allegation true before a court sentence is even delivered, and state that treating rape as an allegation until proven otherwise is a needed part of society, we are supporting rape?”
Stupid statement. We aren’t saying he is guilty of criminal rape. We are saying he has been credibly accused by a huge, and growing number of women of engaging in deplorable sexual assault that matches almost exactly what he was caught saying he did to women. But, you support that kind of sexual assault, so fuck you, lecherous creep.
Again, you don’t seem to know who is running for president. It isn’t Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Clinton shamed women to the extent you morons claim, or really to any extent. The one example is that she said she appreciated everything an alleged victim did for them, before it was reported. This same person said she was not raped, until the morally bankrupt Drudge Report convinced her to change her story years later.
Stop trying to make analogies, you suck at them, and stop trying to talk about morals, because you support sexual abuse.
Essentially, if we state that Planet is calling a rape allegation true before a court sentence is even delivered, and state that treating rape as an allegation until proven otherwise is a needed part of society, we are supporting rape?
This is ludicrous, is our only method to agree with all false rape claims or be called rape supporters?
We have a rule of law, not mob style justice whenever someone makes a rape allegation, and there are reasons behind this.
Instead you are calling people ludicrous for upholding reasonable law.
Clinton has no real plans to stimulate the economy, create jobs and help the middle class, therefore she has resigned to name calling and trash talking. If anyone looked closer at her, I am sure she has made rude comments she would not like to be leaked.
If Hillary gets in we will have 4 years of “Rules for Radicals”. Take Debit to unsubstantial levels, government run health care, get media to only report your side, etc…… Obama got us half way, Hillary will finish the race.
So she would unite low-income communities, what is wrong with that? One of the key problems many complain about is that low-income communities don’t have any cohesion which leads to more crime, e.g. gang violence.
I suspect you are just repeating BS about a book you haven’t read, and wouldn’t understand if you did.
One of the key arguments of violence in low income communities is that single parent hood is a driving factor. When couples get married they do well.
What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation (boys are even not allowed in domestic violence safety programs, if they are teenagers so the family is often separated more than you know) instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? Since no fault divorce laws were passed, as well as assistance programs (which do exist) we have had poverty explode for black folks in ways that mirror the time frame before the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Do you really believe there is more racism and institutional oppression of blacks causing this than in 1964? I don’t think you do. Do you believe assistance has gone down for these groups from the government? I don’t think you do. It seems we need to switch things up in the means and the faculty, maybe it’s time to trust republican’s when it comes to making sure the fabric of marriage isn’t destroyed, and that people take personal responsibility when they get married, and we don’t go into a punitive type of governing. Are you aware there are currently 2 million people in jail and 4 million on parole? Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people. Before no fault laws domestic violence was still a reason to get divorced. There was no reason to do that and it harmed everyone. It harms everyone trying to rely on birth control and sex, instead of staying with someone. Birth control isn’t 100% effective as it is. My wife got pregnant the first time while on the depo shot. She’s not the only person I know of this happening, and in fact, birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy, and encouraging people to date and mess around rather than marry. They then sleep with someone they don’t really like, and think the birth control will work. It won’t long term. Then they need abortions eh?
This is out of control.
You want the way to unite and help the poor? Get the government out of encouraging bad behavior.
“What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation”
Mainly Republicans with their harsh drug laws, harsh “law and order” policies, and policies based in racism, but many Democrats have helped them.
” instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? ”
The people you fantasize about here would just be absentee parents. Many are born out of wedlock, and the divorce rate is significantly lower than it was in previous years. Please, for the love of the God you pretend to worship, stop with the ignorant, racist rants. Not everybody wants to live in your slightly different version of Saudi Arabia, where you are bound to a person for life.
“Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people.”
There is no logical, coherent, non-retarded argument where forcing people to stay married leads to less domestic violence. There is no argument where not letting an abused woman get a divorce leads to less domestic violence. Just saying irreconcilable differences is much easier for a woman afraid of being abused than having to go to court, prove she was abused, and then be stuck with the man if she is unlucky enough to get a neanderthal judge that shares the same deplorable, inhumane, outdated views you hold.
“birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy,”
You are honestly making statements dumber than those made by Agent by a mile. You live in a pure fantasy world. Just deplorable in every statement. Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where your views are largely shared.
October 14, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Shoo fly. I’m not even reading most your derogatory, poorly researched, bigoted, posts.
The best way to deal with people like you is post facts and then just let you go off the rails.
October 14, 2016 at 3:31 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Of course, you can’t reply to anyone who debates you based on reality, eg your bs fantasy math off by 1000s of percent, video evidence contradicting your lies, actual studies by economists instead of bloggers, etc.
Here though, you didn’t post facts, you posted your theories, which are largely based on racism, and on divorce as I stated are actually wrong, divorce rates have declined. I’m certainly not going off the rails, I haven’t had 20 people tell me in the last months to seek professional metal help, unlike you, and I’m not in here justifying murder, torture, rape, and sexual abuse like a degenerate pervert. I’m actually worried about your mental health again, as I was 6 months ago. You are clearly devolving quickly.
October 14, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Of course, you can’t reply to anyone who debates you based on reality, eg your bs fantasy math off by 1000s of percent, video evidence contradicting your lies, actual studies by economists instead of bloggers, etc. ”
What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo. The conclusion was that if you take the corporate profits and compare to what they could possibly provide, and the earnings of corporate leaders, taxing corporations does not help the middle class. I was correct.
I do not source quote bloggers!!! Dang it UW I used a .GOV source and did my own math. The revenues were compared to the tax rate, and I’m not talking about the 1000 anymore, I decided to keep it simple to show how you would get more revenues if the 2.6 trillion was brought back home with a lower rate. As well as more jobs. The one who doesn’t debate reality is you. I source quote my numbers, and I give them from .gov sites.
“Here though, you didn’t post facts, you posted your theories, which are largely based on racism, and on divorce as I stated are actually wrong,”
What numbers on this page have I said regarding divorce? I said divorce has gone up since no fault. I said that black folks are engaged in single parenthood at a 70% rate.
Do we discount CNN now? Don Lemon seems a liberal source.
“Divorce rates have declined. I’m certainly not going off the rails, I haven’t had 20 people tell me in the last months to seek professional metal help, unlike you,”
20 people have not asked me to seek help, and again you are going ad hominem, instead of off of facts. Divorce rates. Divorce rates have declined as compared to what?
To say that divorces that have no fault or reason for divorce have declined is a lie. I have seen the charts, I have seen the claims. Divorce over the last century has fairly steadily gone up, other than recently, and it is still higher now than it was a century ago, in 1910.
“and I’m not here justifying murder, torture, rape, and sexual abuse like a degenerate pervert.”
I have not justified rape. I have said groping is not rape. Unwanted advances are not rape. If a woman tells you to stop, and you stop, you have not raped a woman. You’re a crude moron at that point, but not a rapist. I have not justified torture (of innocents) I have talked about the people who would be saved, and said that torturing terrorists, at a rate of 1,000 to saving 50,000 lives, is worth it. That is not saying torture is good. It is saying that life, is worth more than death. I have never justified murder.
“I’m actually worried about your mental health again, as I was 6 months ago. You are clearly devolving quickly.”
Actually, I’m not. I’m swearing less, engaging more, and am putting more posts up. You just think I’m more and more crazy. It’s because you’re triggered.
October 14, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation”
“Mainly Republicans with their harsh drug laws, harsh “law and order” policies, and policies based in racism, but many Democrats have helped them.”
There are no policies based in racism in America. Source required, post a law. Having laws does not separate the families. No fault divorce laws, and then domestic violence focused on an aggressor and a victim, which excludes male children from being in the same shelter, now that is a separation based family system. Instead of treating couple violence as common couple violence, they use the duluth model. This is aggressive jailing policy, that literally separates the family. It isn’t about treatment, it’s about punishing the “guilty” “male” party. Drug laws are not anti family. How many families are broken apart by addictions, and you want to tell me drug laws harm them? Idiotic.
” instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? ”
“The people you fantasize about here would just be absentee parents. Many are born out of wedlock, and the divorce rate is significantly lower than it was in previous years. Please, for the love of the God you pretend to worship, stop with the ignorant, racist rants. Not everybody wants to live in your slightly different version of Saudi Arabia, where you are bound to a person for life.”
I have said nothing racist here. Who would be absentee parents? Who am I fantasizing about? You don’t even make sense, you are insane. Now my world is similar to Suadi Arabia? Unless you have a reason to get divorced, you should not be able to on a whim. There are consequences to children who then live in poverty. Laws with regards to divorce would not then be comparable to Saudi Arabia, you would have to prove cheating or violence. Both are grounds for divorce. Getting mad that your partner is a dead beat, is not. Finances are one of the leading reasons for divorce, and coincidentally, the children are the ones who live in poverty after the separation, so divorcing for that reason helps no one, and screws over kids.
“Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people.”
There is no logical, coherent, non-retarded argument where forcing people to stay married leads to less domestic violence.”
That was not my comment. The Duluth model is resulting in these men being thrown in jail, rather than treated. See above, whether for being behind on child support payments (the last form of jailing for debt, due to democrats) or for having been in a common couple violence relationship. We have aggressive laws with regards to men who hit women. I’m sorry, even if a guy punches a girl, I don’t support a 3-5 year sentence. I support a 3-5 year rehabilitation program, for both parties. You say I’m pro jails, I’m not. I suppose here again, I’m liberal, I’m sure you will mock me on this one and then say I support violence. I’m prepared for your stupidity. And then if I say they should be in jail you will say I’m pro law and order. It’s a no win scenario for you.
“There is no argument where not letting an abused woman get a divorce leads to less domestic violence.”
As I already said, abuse was grounds for divorce pre no fault divorce laws, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
“Just saying irreconcilable differences is much easier for a woman afraid of being abused than having to go to court, prove she was abused, and then be stuck with the man if she is unlucky enough to get a neanderthal judge that shares the same deplorable, inhumane, outdated views you hold.”
And then here is your justification for that. It’s not easier, and if it is it would be due to your side encouraging jailing husbands. The only scenario in which it would be easier, is if she didn’t want the father of her children to be in jail. Emotionally, no. It would not be easier to say irreconcilable differences. So remind me, who started the Duluth model? Who is encouraging jailing men instead of treating them? Is there any reason that law would only affect women by the way? How about men? My standards are not out dated, or deplorable. Your standards…I would say they are to throw it back at you, but they are just insane.
“birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy,”
“You are honestly making statements dumber than those made by Agent by a mile. You live in a pure fantasy world. Just deplorable in every statement. Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where your views are largely shared.”
Ah, I see, so you just threw insults here, not commentary. So, you don’t have random sex because you believe you won’t have a kid due to birth control? Birth control is 100% effective now is it? I do not support Saudi Arabia style policies. This is insane.
Screw you.
I’m reporting this.
I’ve said I would before, but I am now. This is outright harassment.
Have fun with that.
October 14, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
This is exactly why I normally ignore you.
Am I more insane now UW? Your assaults are getting old, your accusations bleed tin foil hat, your commentary is pathetic, your level of research is idiotic.
You keep on saying blogs. I use blogs, blah blah blah. How about that CNN source I just used?
How about the New York Times, and referencing the same journalist?
You’re a fool. I’m sick of this. Go get your pay check from whoever is paying you for this, and get lost.
If you want to target me, you’ll do better for your employer going after someone like Agent. He can be shown to be stupid and have people dislike his posts, it happens often.
But me, check out my likes to dislikes ratio since I calmed down here.
It’s better than nearly anyone else here.
So attacking me? It’s actually harming the interest of those who employ you. Keep it up. People will see how crazy you are.
October 14, 2016 at 9:54 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
>What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo
Don’t need to read any farther than this. You can’t write a paragraph without lying. You were off by thousands of percent, not 1 extra zero, and as they showed w/ the math you were still wrong. Just the math, until it is looked into. You are a joke lately. I can’t imagine you after Trump gets crushed in the election. Can’t believe I thought you were halfway intelligent for a few weeks.
October 18, 2016 at 1:29 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo
Don’t need to read any farther than this. You can’t write a paragraph without lying. You were off by thousands of percent, not 1 extra zero, and as they showed w/ the math you were still wrong. Just the math, until it is looked into. You are a joke lately. I can’t imagine you after Trump gets crushed in the election. Can’t believe I thought you were halfway intelligent for a few weeks.”
Sigh, idiot.
Ok, let me put this slow for you. He’s saying my CONCLUSION was off by 100 to 1000 percent.
A TYPO regarding how many rich there were to poor, in the wealthiest one percent, when vs the wealthiest .01% wasn’t the point of contention.
The point was whether we could get enough taxes from them, and whether it was worth it.
We have nearly more than the total corporate profits in the U.S. out of the U.S. and I gave numbers to prove this.
When we had that debate, instead of looking at the tax rate, and comparing to the revenues we would increase by making the corporate tax rate 15% and bringing them all home, whether I said the top 1% or top .01% (initially) could not pay for the funds, doesn’t change the overall number of the conclusion and the date I gave after that point.
Essentially, if we taxed 15% and brought back those revenues, my numbers were accurate.
Do you want to debate those numbers?
Or can you?
October 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
To connect the dots, why single parenthood is the driving factor is that poverty is a large factor.
And when it comes to poverty, the number one item that is an indicator, is single parenthood.
“Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.”
Ok, let me get this through your head:
What you just said is a lie. Trump was talking about the Mexicans that “Mexico” sends over. He is talking about, when he said that, the 509,000 illegal immigrants in our prisons, making up 20% of the prison population for a full population of 330,000,000, and more specifically, the ones that we send back to Mexico out of that group for Mexico to take care of, who cross back over. The wall is to stop mostly that.
Context is indeed needed. You are essentially a triggered useful idiot to the left.
Because you can’t argue policy, you argue sexist, racist, homophobic, and garbage like that.
October 16, 2016 at 5:40 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob, The stats you are lying about simply don’t exist, but the most recent comprehensive study debunks it, as they do every single claim you make. Not surprisingly, this is also bordering on outright racism.
As of 2013 according to the Bureau of Judicial Statistics the number of of inmates in state and federal prisons who are not U.S. citizens make up only 5% of the total population, you incompetent, racist, lying, piece of garbage.
So the government is lying to you then? Here is the link again.
Did you read it?
“United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters”
The UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT the link is a .GOV!!!!
It is not a fact checker site applying a spin.
“To determine the types of offenses criminal aliens incarcerated in federal Types of Criminal and state prison systems and local jails were arrested for, we selected a random sample of aliens. Specifically, we obtained data from BOP on the population of aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008 (approximately 49,000 inmates). We added to this the population o convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under SCAAP (approximately 460,0 inmates) for a total of about 509,000. These two populations were chosen because they were the most recent population data available when we began our analysis. In order to obtain an alien’s arrest history, we needed to first determine which criminal aliens had a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification number. ”
The amount of Illegal Mexicans who have been jailed (509,000, not debatable, many released back over to Mexico only to cross back over, ergo, this is a dynamic number, not at any one given time) Rivals our entire prison population.
Only by twisting words, and making the numbers at any one time, can you conclude that 509,000 illegal immigrants have not been jailed between the time frame, and that we don’t have a 1.5 billion dollar cost.
So, important notes, illegal Mexican crime was nearly ten times higher than legal Mexican immigrants.
Digest that for a moment. Politifact shows we apprehended 420,000 Illegals in 2013. 27,000 were convicted of drug trafficking, murder, and other aspects.
That is a huge number.
These are not debatable numbers. You keep thinking you can grab numbers and discount the source. This is the total for federal prosecutions, and it as such does not account for state and local.
As an quick comparison, California has twice as many people in state prisons as federal ones. A link is forthcoming. There are 72,000 in California alone in federal and state prisons.
Politifact is clearly wrong with regards to their numbers. These are state studies ACTU.
Politifact reference. California alone though has 72,000. So we can assume my other number is low, and the .gov has a fairly good study but it doesn’t say how many at any given point in time for both the state and federal, it also focuses on federal.
That, California alone, represents a total of 1/6th of those who were stopped in crossing the border. That’s a huge number
October 18, 2016 at 1:54 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here is another GAO study, which includes the state and federal, it says for 2009 alone it was 296,000.
When I say politifact said we apprehended 420,000 I am not counting these in prison totals by the way. I’m talking people we stopped from coming in when I say apprehended.
Keep trying ACTU. You can quote your agenda filled opinion pieces and I’ll continue to source quote .GOV studies.
October 18, 2016 at 2:00 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
296,000 in one year, in 2009.
Look at politifact and match up who we stopped from crossing.
That is 556,000. Of the ones we know about, 556,000 tried to cross and were stopped, and we put 296,000 in state and local prisons in 2009.
Holy heck.
Those numbers are not good.
We would have to either assume a LOT of undocumented workers are here that we are not aware of to balance out the numbers. We are ten times higher than both the people apprehended and the ones jailed to get it to normal levels. That would mean that of that total of 852,000 for that year, we would need 8 million to make it a more reasonable percentage, though still absurdly high.
October 13, 2016 at 4:40 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
Oy vey I realized I didn’t connect further dots.
So, uniting the poor by default means the issues they have. Black poor people for example think the reason they are poor has to do with being black, and they are divided from that belief from the rest of us. There is fighting, protests, etc. Many areas of poor aspects are the same in a similar way though not as prevalent due to the fact that somewhere around 70% of black parents are single. So the underlying root problem is the same, single parenthood, but the belief of those suffering is that there is a unique problem to a subset of gender or race. This is consistently what democrats do, and it divides them.
Women think it is due to their gender instead of choices, despite no evidence that there are programs stopping their earning potential.
Black folks think it is because they are black.
Gay poor folks think it is because they are gay, even though gay folks make more than straight women and straight men on average. They just don’t make more than married folks all the time.
Mexicans think it is because they are Mexican, and that people hate them immigrating here, when in fact they are just hard workers that often go into low paying crappy labor, which I admit sucks for them, but they blame racism and then eat up the democrats lines.
Divide, conquer, repeat.
No democrat is currently attempting to unite. They are attempting to divide.
Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.
October 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.”
NEVER HAPPENED.
I gave the links and showed what Trump was talking about. He was not calling any group except rapists and murderers that were getting over the border, rapists.
You’re an idiot, stop claiming this lie.
He was talking about two illegal immigrant problems that need a wall to fix it.
1. The 509,000 currently jailed Illegal immigrants from 2006-2010. When we release them to Mexico, they cross right back over. These are the ones he said come right back over, and Mexico is sending their worst.
2. 80% of illegal Mexican women are raped crossing the boarder.
Sooooo, these illegal immigrants that are crossing aren’t raping these women? They aren’t “deplorable”? We shouldn’t stop that? We should spend 1.5 billion a year, and jail 509,000? We should allow those people to cross right back over? We should allow those women to be raped?
What? Idiot?
October 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So if I’m wrong 1000’s of times, show me!
It seems like I have in ever post here so far corrected you.
With links, liberal links. I’ve also given you information about colleges you didn’t know. You’re welcome.
I’m sorry, do you not like it when someone is well educated and they speak to you? I must be a pro rape sexist. That’s what it is.
Yeah, when you don’t have an argument that’s the way it always goes.
October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is out of hand, and I’m sick of it.
He was referencing illegal immigrants who were crossing that were criminals, a serious problem, that makes up over 20% of our prison population, and costs us 1.5 billion per year.
He was talking about the women who are raped crossing the border.
How should he have phrased it?
You tell me. When talking about illegal immigrants, on the southern border, which means saying illegal Mexican immigrants is the only way to delineate between Canadian in the north and the folks in the south, how else could he have referred to them? He also said “some, I assume, are good people”.
So those 509,000 aren’t criminals.
The 80% of the women raped when crossing illegally, means there isn’t an issue with crime with regards to illegal immigrants?
This is foolish.
You give me how he should have said it.
Did the Huff post site say it wrong? Oh no! They might be calling illegal Mexican immigrants rapists by saying 80% of women are raped! Moron!!!
You’re talking to an educated voter, and you keep belittling me! It is CLEAR I have the most links, the best concepts, of anyone on this site on the right side of the spectrum. The only think that makes you believe I am sexist, racist, pro rape, and all these things is that you believe I am far right wing.
This is deplorable. This is the real deplorable. Your God Hillary, is uniting you all against people you label as sexist, racist, genocidal, etc.
While your side tried to assassinate Trump, and was given air time as to why on CNN. No one took that seriously. While your side just recently flame bombed a Trump campaign center, keeps trying to shut down our rallies, get in our faces until you get punched, and then when you beat our people to bleeding in the streets you ignore that.
It’s insane! I will fight you, and your kin, in the way that counts:
With facts. Not fists.
October 11, 2016 at 5:50 pm
Deplorables says:
Like or Dislike:
8
7
Good for you NY Broker. Didn’t think there were any up there in that state against her. She bragged that she was re-elected by a greater margin than she won by the first time.
So you like anti-semetic quotes now, and think saying Clinton founded ISIS and has been fighting it yet whole life are ok. Even if he just said a long time its still wrong.
October 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
“So you like anti-semetic quotes now, and think saying Clinton founded ISIS and has been fighting it yet whole life are ok. Even if he just said a long time its still wrong. ”
Let’s deal with the comment I actually just said, instead of trying to do what you just did.
I’m talking about Agent’s comments, and about one of Hillary’s regarding fighting ISIS her entire adult life. Do I think that quote is ok? Yes. It is for effect, it is essentially hyperbole. For example Obama’s lip stick on a pig comment, which I also don’t care about.
You’re going to have to source quote the anti-semetic quotes, you’re trying to blend a comment about ISIS in the same concept as saying Hillary has been fighting (and failing) to take care of ISIS her entire adult life.
Also, saying Hillary allowed ISIS to form (which is what Trump was saying, again hyperbole) I think is just fine. You need to stop policing speech and then saying therefore what it means.
October 13, 2016 at 3:12 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
Freedom, freedom from oppression ya’all.
Freedom from those pesky people who talk offensive!
Freedom my friends, freedom from the Jews, if we only take this into our own hands and end those Jews oppression!
Freedom my friends, from the oppression of religion. The glory days are coming.
The dog days are over, the dog days are done…Run fast for your mother, run fast for your father. Run for your children, for your sisters and brothers.
Sorry, that came to mind. You feel so freed by the democrats, don’t you?
You’re wrong. I’ve shown how, but that false sense of security and moral high ground makes you feel good, doesn’t it?
Why don’t we look and see what the GOP’s official position is:
“We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment,” –2016 Republican Party platform statement, verbatim.
I heard they are making a sequel to that great Leo DiCaprio film and it will be about Drumpf. They are calling it, “What’s Eating Gilbert Grope?”
When Drumpf told those teenage pageant girls not to worry about him seeing them naked, he’s seen it all before, exactly what did he mean? Did he mean he’s seen teenaged girls naked before? He is currently named in a lawsuit that suggests this is the case. Things that make you go, hmmmm.
Yes, they do make me go Hmmm, because you haven’t provided a source, and you’ve believed every far left claim out there in regards to Trump being a supposed pedophile with far less evidence than Bill Clinton.
These things make me go Hmmm, quite a bit. No source, and when sources are used it is someone who contradicts the rape victim and puts a made up story about bald spots, which in my opinion, if false, the person who wrote that book should be fined and in jail. You don’t get to ruin someone’s life in public, and when it comes to men being accused of rape, many have actually committed suicide over such things ruining their life.
It’s a serious thing, and you need a high standard of evidence. Not literal hearsay.
What you have done in the standard of care in regards to rape claims is nothing short of disgusting.
There are colleges which have laws that if they believe the likelihood is is 50.01% or higher, they are mandated to convict, even without ample evidence. That is due to stupid political fights like this.
You call your opponents disgusting, when all you do is trigger divisive moral high ground battles, which is in itself, disgusting.
Saying a politician is corrupt, broke the law with regards to emails, has bad tax plans, and will ruin the middle class are all political issues, they are not immoral to say.
Saying what you say about Trump however, is.
He’s xenophobic, Islamophobic, homo phobic, against the womens, wants to murder innocent Muslims, hates the Mexicans due to wanting to control a serious illegal immigration issue, as well as build a wall to make sure murderers don’t cross right back over, (clearly happening or we wouldn’t have 509,000 illegal immigrants in jail, making up 21% of the prison population in 2013.)
We can debate whether or not Obama is deporting illegals, but what is more important is how many illegals are making it back over and are currently in jail, and have come here since 2006, as well as how much we spend per year on that.
But instead he’s just racist against Mexicans. Because you can’t debate properly and make everything about morality.
Exactly what 1960 democrats accused republicans of the time of doing.
See, republicans grew up, and became the party of freedom. Democrats never did. They buckled down and used the same divisive tactics they used with segregation at the time.
“There are colleges which have laws that if they believe the likelihood is is 50.01% or higher, they are mandated to convict, even without ample evidence. That is due to stupid political fights like this.”
You are a … idiot. Colleges don’t have their own justice systems that convict people outside of the normal one.
Have you been accused of rape? You are so outside the norm on this there has to be a reason other than stupidity for your bias. People can post thousands of cases where thanks to people like you rape and sexual assault was ignored for every wrongful accusation of rape.
There is a college system regarding expulsion. I am not a fool. These rules are that if they are 50.01% or more likely they are to be removed from the school (my form of convicted) These same colleges push for the same standard in the legal system. Mostly in UK for now, but California has started in on this.
And also, requiring a high level of proof does not make rape and sexual assault trivialized any more than murder. Are you ok with the death penalty? I bet I know the answer. Why aren’t you ACTU? I know demographics. And I know one of the two reasons you aren’t.
1. You might execute an innocent. This is the one where you’re a hypocrite.
2. Eye for an eye leaves the world blind. Murder is never ok.
I am also not for the death penalty. It is for the same reason I’m not ok with requiring rape claims to be taken as by default true, simply because an accusation was made.
Also, have I been accused of rape?
Yes. So has over half the men I have ever known. Two accused me of it. One was my ex. She decided to have sex with me while we were breaking up, while she was getting together with another guy. It upset the guy obviously, so she said it was rape. When we first got together she said the same thing about a gangbang she had…That I later saw her telling one of them how much fun she had (not from rape, it was consensual). She had said it so that I would date her.
The next girl I was drunk and she had sex with me. She was on me the whole night. At another party this woman’s friend started flirting with me. This was quite an attractive woman, and it made the woman I had sex with feel bad about herself. She then started telling me that I had forced myself on her, as if I didn’t remember because I was too drunk, in order to then say how dare you, and make sure I would feel sorry for her. Obviously, I was not drunk enough to forget that this woman was touching me in public on a couch, in public, before getting on top of me under a blanket in said same room. I’ve told you before, I wasn’t always a conservative. The fact that you would call me certain things is absurd. At these same parties I would flirt with gay guys. I’ve done some crazy things, probably more than you.
You aren’t for the death penalty, but support killing family members of terrorists and torturing suspected terrorists, and accused terrorists if there is a 3% chance in your mind of finding information. Many betting tortured die. Clown
This guy probably decided you are too repulsive to deal with. But you don’t get your own definition of convicted,just like you don’t get your own employment figures, versions of quotes, fake math, etc. The standard they use is the same juries use in civil suits, so they are kicking out people accused of rape who would in their minds lose in civil court. There is no conviction and they are free to go to other schools. You are oddly biased in favor of sexual abusers, unless they are Democrats of curse, because that’s above all to you. You have claimed there is no real problem with rape on campuses. You are crazy on this. Hopefully you won’t threaten a civil war killing millions of liberals if society continues to crack down on rape,like you have on other topics.
Based on your comments about what is and what is not sexual abuse nobody can take you seriously as a credible person when you tell your rape story. You have said going to a woman you don’t know, even in the workplace, and grabbing her vagina or kissing her is not sexual abuse, but a way of “getting some”. Even if you didn’t commit a crime you are too deranged on this topic to believe. Also, the FBI research finds that about 3-8% of rape accusations are false, not a huge amount like you claim, that doesn’t count the sexual abuse you have dismissed and supported.
October 14, 2016 at 4:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“You aren’t for the death penalty, but support killing family members of terrorists and torturing suspected terrorists, and accused terrorists if there is a 3% chance in your mind of finding information. Many betting tortured die. Clown”
I’m convinced you are a paid troll. I don’t say this often but I keep correcting you about this. Trump did not ever use the word “kill” when referring to family members of terrorists. He said you had to go after their families, be tough with their families, what he mans on this is the social end. You tell these folks look, your husband is going bye bye, and it’s because you supported this. You basically make public consequence for supporting terrorists. The only way you have made this a threat on life, is to go off another comment I showed before. You can’t keep saying I support killing Muslim family members when I constantly disavow that, pathetic clown.
“This guy probably decided you are too repulsive to deal with. But you don’t get your own definition of convicted,just like you don’t get your own employment figures, versions of quotes, fake math, etc.”
Read my other link, it is not my own definition of convicted, and I don’t twist employment number figures. This is bull crap, and you know it.
“The standard they use is the same juries use in civil suits, so they are kicking out people accused of rape who would in their minds lose in civil court. There is no conviction and they are free to go to other schools.”
Saying rapists get off and go to other schools doesn’t say that lowering the standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt is what we should do. If you do that, then innocent people go to jail. I’m sorry, we uphold the law, we uphold innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not me defending and allowing rapists. It is disallowing kangaroo style courts.
“You are oddly biased in favor of sexual abusers, unless they are Democrats of curse, because that’s above all to you.”
Really? Name a democrat I have called a sexual abuser. I even said I refuse to go after Clinton on it. Give me an example. The fact is that YOU have chosen who to hold liable of sexual abuse, except democrats of course, because they have free passes, due to the D. I’m consistent, you’re not.
“You have claimed there is no real problem with rape on campuses. You are crazy on this.”
There isn’t. Numbers prove it, and the only study that shows an issue are ones that include the question “Were you asked for consent” or other aspects that are not rape. I am not crazy on it. You are less likely to be raped on campus than you are off campus. Feminist and democrat Christina Hoff Somers agrees. She is an equity feminist. Though you probably don’t know subsections of groups considering how often you label them. Look her up.
“Hopefully you won’t threaten a civil war killing millions of liberals if society continues to crack down on rape,like you have on other topics.”
I have NEVER threatened civil war!!!! Holy hell UW!!!! I have said it is a matter of time before your side causes a war. Your side has been attacking Trump supporters, engaging in violence at rallies, brown shirting to shut them down, the right is not doing that. At campuses people are shutting down debates they don’t like as hate speech, black lives matters, and you can find the videos, are going on streets saying “Is he a white boy? Get em! No white boys on this street tonight!” Google it! A man was shot and killed at a BLM protest recently. This is all the left. It is only a matter of time, before your side goes to assault a Trump rally and someone fires a gun, on either side. It will result in a war. We simply want to debate on the right, and on the left you simply want to destroy us.
That mentality will start a war. I have threatened NO war!!!
Freaking a you little paid democrat troll. I know you are now. Go ahead, come at me you immature piece of trash. Let’s go! I’m all for taking down a paid troll.
Post your facts little boy.
October 17, 2016 at 10:05 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“I’m convinced you are a paid troll. I don’t say this often but I keep correcting you about this. Trump did not ever use the word “kill” when referring to family members of terrorists. He said you had to go after their families, be tough with their families, what he mans on this is the social end.”
Lyin’ Bob, doing the only thing he knows how to do, lying to normalize crazy Republicans. He didn’t say anything about social, he said “take them out.” There is no rational reason to think he meant anything else, anyone who thinks otherwise is an outright liar or the dumbest rube on the face of the earth. Saying you told me over and over didn’t change the facts;I’m not you watching Fox, repetition of BS doesn’t make me think it is true.
Oh wait, I just got it, he meant get tough, do more, be extreme, and take them out to dinner!
Give me a break with that weak crap, kiddo. Stick to bragging about sexual assault and rape with your degenerate friends, like you’ve admitted you do, because your analysis of this is a joke.
October 14, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
It’s funny how the first assumption you make is I must be an idiot…When I source quote laws all the time, rather than you might be misinterpreting what I say.
It’s very funny. You’re not as think as you smart you are.
I know it feels good to call everyone else a sexist and a rapist and against people, but it’s not ok.
It’s all about the Benjamins…Ahem, I mean the policy. Hey.
For me it’s not the first assumption, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt after reading about 1000 pages worth of idiotic, factually incorrect, wrongheaded, racist, unintelligent rantings.
You think sexual assault is ok. You are a POS. Delete your account.
October 17, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“For me it’s not the first assumption, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt after reading about 1000 pages worth of idiotic, factually incorrect, wrongheaded, racist, unintelligent rantings.”
Name one. Also, for this one, you were wrong. Soooo…You might be over thinking your abilities. And I proved it with a source quote.
“You think sexual assault is ok. You are a POS. Delete your account.”
No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.
October 17, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Climate change, unemployment, Trump didn’t say kill terrorists families, increased minimum wage costs jobs, Reagan proposed spending cuts, Republican health care plan should not be revealed because it can’t pass oh wait bills should be brought up anyways, the bill adds up (it didn’t, it cuts insurance massively to young people), Republicans aren’t obstructionist, oh they should obstruct Obama, it’s not unprecedented or obstructionist to refuse a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Trump didn’t want to deport citizens…
>No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.
Your said going and grabbing a woman by her vagina isn’t sexual assault, that isn’t “approaching a woman”, that is being a perverted sexual abuser, which you support. You hold the viewpoints of absolute scum in this topic because you’re a sexist idiot.
October 17, 2016 at 3:35 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Climate change, unemployment,”
What specific number did I say that was wrong? Quote it. You are incorrect that I have been “wrong here” I have compared the LPR during Reagan and Obama, where it has gone up now, and then I gave links showing it was not the baby boomers causing that. That is as far as I have gone with regards to unemployment. Do you want to take that debate now? In regards to climate change, I pointed out that 97% of scientists do not agree that man made climate change is both primarily man mad and catastrophic, I gave links, I’m not wrong there. How specifically am I wrong regarding climate change? What about it?
“Trump didn’t say kill terrorists families,”
He didn’t. It’s on you to provide a link with context showing he did. When he said “you have to go after their families” he did not once say murder or kill. Soooo…You’re drawing that conclusion. Otherwise, source quote and prove me wrong, that’s all you have to do ACTU. And I would agree with you. But you haven’t, still, you just keep saying I’m wrong. Prove your points, like I do.
“increased minimum wage costs jobs,”
The jury is in debate on this one, and I have also said to agent, I wasn’t sure how the law in WA state did regarding it and I would not jump to conclusions. Also, you cannot “prove” me wrong on this one, since the science on this one is subjective and depends on the minimum wage bill. If it is a blanket one, yes, it costs jobs. Smaller businesses can’t afford it, and they make up as (lie) Obama said, 97% of the job creators. I added that lie because it is one, and because if it were true, no one would be able to afford a $15 dollar minimum wage with a base $500,000 revenues for 5-10 employees. I have seen profit loss sheets, they can’t afford it.
“Reagan proposed spending cuts”
He did, and I source quoted it.
“Republican health care plan should not be revealed because it can’t pass oh wait bills should be brought up anyways, the bill adds up (it didn’t, it cuts insurance massively to young people),”
Re read what you put here. It’s hard to see what you’re saying. It couldn’t pass, and it would lower premiums by 21% compared to the democrat plan. It also gave subsidies for help, and tax write offs for paying for insurance. This means the only reason the uninsured rate would be lower, is because people would choose to go without insurance. It does not cut insurance for young people. It offers them credits to pay for it, just as much as Obama’s plan, and reduces the cost 21%. So…Yeah. Those are facts as per the CBO evaluation. You can’t just make up your own.
“Republicans aren’t obstructionist,”
Blanket statement, proof needed. I did show laws that democrats blocked and the lied in public about. Regardless, this would be an opinion of yours and mine. You would have to prove me wrong on an individual basis, and you haven’t. To prove republicans are obstructionists you would have to prove it on a blanket basis, rather than an individual, and you haven’t.
“oh they should obstruct Obama, it’s not unprecedented or obstructionist to refuse a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee,”
It’s not unprecedented. When our nation was new, there were several appointments that took 200-300 days. Look it up, I’m not giving you the numbers.
” Trump didn’t want to deport citizens…”
It wasn’t about deporting citizens, that’s a lie. A citizen cannot be deported. He wanted to rather than leave kids with no parents, send them back with their parents. So are you saying you would rather leave the children without their parents, and put them in the adoption agencies? What is your solution? Amnesty? Allowing people to come in illegally, have kids, and use those kids for permanent residency, while then we have to restrict people who come legally, because we do have a capacity of which if we surpass it we will break the system? What’s your solution ACTU?
“>No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.”
“Your said going and grabbing a woman by her vagina isn’t sexual assault, that isn’t “approaching a woman”,”
No I didn’t. I said groping, or touching, is vulgar. Saying you can grab someone by the pussy is not the same as doing it, and also, he was talking about women interested in him. Not women who were not. That is tantamount to bragging, not sexual assault. He was not talking about randomly grabbing a woman’s crotch. Idiot.
“that is being a perverted sexual abuser, which you support.”
No, it’s not. And you’re sick for saying it.
“You hold the viewpoints of absolute scum in this topic because you’re a sexist idiot.”
No, I don’t. End of story. Get back to school baby boy.
“In a message accompanying the details of his budget for fiscal 1982, Reagan claimed that his plan to reduce federal spending by $48.6 billion in fiscal 1982 and lower taxes by $53.9 billion would help move America “back toward economic sanity”
“Reagan recommended that total federal spending be held to $695.3 billion in fiscal 1982, with budget authority of $772.4 billion, revenues of $650.3 billion and a deficit of $45 billion”
“As the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Alice M. Rivlin, told the Senate Budget Committee at a hearing March 11, his fiscal plans “represent a radical redirection of the federal budget.””
Obviously, he was not able to get the democrats to side with him on this. He settled with tax cuts, that was not his goal.
October 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, what I did do was say that Trump’s comments, while egotistical, were nothing extraordinary.
He thinks he is the big man, and wants to be the big man, and odds are plenty of women wanted him.
What you are doing is hypothesizing based on lewd comments that he therefore must have done that to a woman who didn’t want him to.
Let me give an example:
If a woman wants me, and I know it, and I grab her and kiss her, and later brag about how women want me to grab and kiss them, that is not sexual assault. It’s me being a douche.
Nothing about Trump’s comments imply there is no “consent”. You are implying that must be the case. Think back to every sexual encounter you have had. There was a moment when you both knew you wanted each other, and you moved forward. Trump is basically talking about that while bragging.
He’s basically vulgar, and you then say his words must mean he assaulted some woman. No. You need evidence for that, and one of the recent women who talked about the airplane incident, was proven wrong by the facts of the people on the airplane. It’s not just this witness either. Several people say her account is incorrect.
Whether you like it or not, you’re talking a speech that Trump spoke poorly, he has no plan presented that he currently supports to kill terrorist families.
The way they made this not a lie, was to say this is the longest someone has not received an up or down vote. In present day, this is the same thing as a down vote in the past. This is their way of saying no. Otherwise, it would be untrue that Merrick is taking the longest to appoint.
And saying no to a Judge nominee, for a president who has consistently tried to push for government over reach, is the way our congress is meant to work, checks and balances.
It isn’t obstruction, it’s due process.
With regards to guns and sound background checks, we actually have agreeable measures. When democrats refuse to pass the expansion without an amendment addressing firing ranges, they are being obstructionists. They can pass what they want later, or put it up to vote on it’s own. But they consistently refuse to do this.
The terrorist background check was the same thing. They wouldn’t pass it on it’s own, they wanted their added pork. No added freaking pork should be in my bills. We address issues one at a time. Background checks are background checks, you don’t get to insert your regulations for firing range businesses at the same time.
October 17, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So now I’ve shown actual obstruction and compared it to checks and balances, that is a full and thoughtful concept for me to present.
How many sources have I used? How many laws have I quoted, now and in the past?
You haven’t. You quote what some tabloid style reporter says like national enquirer. It’s bluntly ignorant.
October 17, 2016 at 4:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So, now allow me to do what you tried to do with me, which is show you were you have ACTUALLY been wrong:
You were wrong regarding college “convictions”. You didn’t even know what they were.
You were wrong regarding Merrick being the longest in history to be appointed a judge.
Links prove both these things. They aren’t matters of opinion.
You were wrong that Reagan never proposed spending cuts.
The rest I will give you passes as just being matters that are debatable, but these I will not.
You could be right about minimum wage. I could be right. I actually tried to back up my argument, and to UW’s credit, he also did, but he mislead the details trying to say every “credible” economist thought minimum wage increases didn’t harm unemployment, which was a lie. However, if he left that out, I would have respectfully just thought his research didn’t prove that minimum wage didn’t affect unemployment, and that we should be careful about such laws.
Regarding climate change: I’m not incorrect about what I have said about climate change, and I have not argued it doesn’t exist. I don’t want to really say you’re wrong here, because here is the kicker, you extremists don’t realize: I do believe it exists. I do not like it when people say 97% of scientists agree with it. I recently gave a link showing it was more 50/50, and this time I specifically gave one that was climatologists. However, me saying this isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about allowing open debate on it, which you and UW have insisted anyone who questions say a carbon tax credit as being an unethical government means to revenues that are morally unquestionable, which is risky, and that those numbers factually cannot have a large affect on climate change, which means this has a huge cost without affect, you have labeled these people as insane. THAT is insane.
THAT is my issue. Your totalitarian bull crap, of agree with all or die.
I AM a moderate. I have explained how so, but if I don’t go far left, you go full attack on how much of a rapist and murderer I am. You social justice warrior hacks are out of control and need to be stopped.
The rest of these should be debatable issues, but you don’t allow that, do you?
October 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I didn’t word the climate change thing properly when I mentioned I believe it is real:
I do not believe that man made climate change is catastrophic on a global level.
I believe it can destroy eco-systems, which is bad in particularly third world country nations for whom it is hard to rebuild. Whether that can be changed by governmental law, and whether or affect is that large, is another story.
There are those on the left stating we will destroy the planet, and that 97% of scientists agree we will destroy the planet. That is a lie.
It will continue to be a lie. It always was a lie.
October 17, 2016 at 6:05 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Now you are lying saying you were always saying scientists aren’t in agreement on the severity of the impact and not how many agreed. That’s not true. Then you prove part of my point by reposting the same links you always post. Ron, uw and I have all commented that this fucking link you paste every time skips most of his presidency and he actually offered a bigger budget which is why he was against the budget presented. But you are too pig headed and stupid to look beyond the article you like confirming your belief.
>The jury is in debate on this one, and I have also said to agent,
It’s really not. Again Ron confused and uw served your ass to you on this, and one provided a comprehensive study showing all academic research on the topic which you lied about reading and clearly didn’t understand. That’s when I realized you were a fucking clown pretending to be a smart serious person.
The rest was ts;dr. Stick to hate speech and praising sexual assault Bob.
October 17, 2016 at 6:14 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And regarding catastrophic climate change being majority man made:
The key words are the difference, and the key words are being used to mislead. It is known as CAGW.
This is where democrats mislead people about a consensus.
October 17, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Now you are lying saying you were always saying scientists aren’t in agreement on the severity of the impact and not how many agreed. That’s not true.”
No, you always assumed, I always said that 97% of people did not agree with global warming, and this is what I meant. If you are now agreeing that global warming consensus does not extend to CAGW you are agreeing I was correct, I did not lie.
“Then you prove part of my point by reposting the same links you always post.”
Uh, no, and you will have to verify that. The Judge Merrick one is new, the Reagan one has one old one and one new one, and whether or not they or old does not make them false. Please disprove my links, with contrary evidence, rather than Ad hominem.
“Ron, uw and I have all commented that this fucking link you paste every time skips most of his presidency and he actually offered a bigger budget which is why he was against the budget presented.”
No, he offered larger budgets after democrats refused to let him have the lower budgets and called it radical. And I have told you THIS every time. He could not stop the democrats. Ron told me the buck stops with him, and if he had a good plan democrats would have passed it, you two differ from Ron and instead claim that Reagan never sought lower budgets, that is a lie. Ron says he failed, and blames him. You’re delusional. I say Ronald failed, and it is precisely your side that blocked him.
“But you are too pig headed and stupid to look beyond the article you like confirming your belief.”
Flip it around, and the issue is you. And, you started swearing when I broke this down, so…Yeah.
Psycho much?
October 17, 2016 at 6:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
CBO report regarding Reagan’s first budget proposal, note the sections going over reduced spending by changing the increase in spending from 13% to below 6%.
The first year, most of Regan’s deficit was actually the tax cuts, which take time to produce increases in revenue, and which ultimately, did their job, but were the actual reason for the first year deficit.
Regan proposed stopping a default 13% increase in spending that was going to occur. He certainly got in the way of spending increases.
Or is this CBO report garbage too?
October 17, 2016 at 6:29 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also,
That was after the fight regarding the first items, which they were debating about in public. As Reagan was trying to make these spending cuts possible, and finally passed the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in August of 1981, many different things were debated in the public eye.
Reagan worked with what he had. Presidents only push their plans in public. What you don’t realize is, they don’t start bills.
You are so foolish, the president does not co sponsor bills.
Do you know how bills are planned?
He gets guys together, gives them a guideline, and says “I want these things”
The a bunch of politicians go to sponsor, and co sponsor, bills, to bring them to the floor.
When you have evidence that Reagan had things he wanted in the public eye, that he outlined and said “give me this” that the CBO commented regarding, that was his plan.
What he got, was a different story.
What Obama said in public, was exactly what he got. This is something I have told Ron often. Reagan didn’t get what he wanted, Obama did.
I can blame Obama for what he did get. I can blame democrats for what Reagan didn’t.
He always calls me a hypocrite here, but he’s not thinking well enough on this, and applies what I call false equivalency of circumstance based on different presidents and different scenarios.
I have to all caps this:
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS LEVEL OF RESEARCH. I just gave you who sponsored the bill that was passed, and explained it didn’t line up with Reagan’s wants.
And you blame Reagan still. Astonishing how ignorant you are, and yet you keep calling me as such.
October 17, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I also noticed you didn’t make any comment about the areas of the college 50.01%, nor did you about the comments you made about Judge Garland Merrick. Is that because you realize you were wrong?
And at that point, isn’t it entirely inappropriate, considering this shows I can be right, for you to then claim I don’t know what the F I’m talking about?
You aren’t a God in information, and neither am I. When you attach insults to well thought out conclusions, you ruin discord. It’s not ok.
Even if I were wrong, and I’m not about Reagan’s spending, it wouldn’t give you the ok to then on an unrelated topic, state that I’m wrong all the time, to state that I must be wrong now.
When you said that, that I’m wrong all the time, you said it to disregard something that I have now proven you were actually wrong on.
This means you focused on other arguments, to pull away from the current one.
That isn’t proper debate. I will focus on each one in the now.
When I say something, I’ve researched it, and I know what I’m talking about.
So the next time you assume I haven’t, and am “clueless” as you guys say so often, maybe you need to realize you have a bigoted bias against republicans. Maybe.
Also, the fact that you didn’t automatically know what I was talking about means you have never researched this, so if you come back debating on it, I’m not going to believe anything you say without source quotes.
If you knew about the 50.01%, you would have known what I was talking about the moment I said 50.01%.
Should we lower the standard of conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) for rape, if it jails innocent people because we want to make sure we put every rapist in jail?
Why should we not apply the same standard to murder and assault cases?
Do you believe that people who falsely accuse others of rape should be punished for doing so?
On that last one I’m fairly sure you will say no, but people commit suicide, go to jail, and lose their life and respect over this. False rape claims should be a criminal offense.
Clarification: my post above is a reply to Captain Planet’s glib remark about a DiCaprio sequel to Wolf of Wall St called ‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grope’. The dozens of intermediate posts leads to confusion as to what I am replying to, thus this clarification is needed.
More comments encouraged by your leader, the great unifier Hillary Clinton.
Because everyone who doesn’t support her is an intolerable idiot.
You need to back up what you say. That’s not on me, it’s on you. If you’re failing, you need to source quote.
If you want to call someone an idiot, you need to point out the facts and why they are wrong.
Simply saying idiot, doesn’t work.
You’re such a child, and yet you perceive everyone else as being one.
You’re accusing me of being a pro rape supporter while I say contrary. You’re calling me sexist, racist, while I explain what the issues are, and I do not make them matters of sex or race, I make them about facts.
The only one obsessed with race, sex, and other comments, is you!
Yes to all of your questions, Yogi. My premium decreased and no increase in ded, either. First time EVER my health insurance premium did that. Thank you, President Obama!
No lies at all. I was SHOCKED about the premium. We’ll see what happens this year, but last year was flipping awesome! And, I am way better under President Obama than I was under any other President. Career is stronger, finances are better, it has been a prosperous time in the Captain Planet household.
October 13, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
6
Chris Hansen is coming back? I smell a Drumpf sting!
Link 1 — “An earlier version of this report wrongly described the rape allegation made against Jay Cheshire as ‘false’. In fact it was simply withdrawn. We apologise [sic] for the error.”
Maybe she was raped and maybe she wasn’t. Just because you withdraw an allegation in court is not proof that said issue didn’t happen. It just means you’re not pursuing it further in that venue.
Link 2 — ‘The evidence did not, and was never going to, prove rape. The prime overriding consideration in the CPS’s decision had been merely that the complainant wished the case to go ahead. It was little short of a craven abdication of responsibility for making an independent and fair-minded assessment of the case’
So the person who lied and claimed rape wasn’t believed because there was no evidence to support her claim. There were witnesses too who proved she was lying.
I don’t think anyone is actually trying to argue that “you claimed you were raped? okay. we believe you. no trial – let’s just send the supposed rapist to jail” are they?
Planet by definition is doing that by ranking “allegations” against Trump as true, and is focusing on them to no end.
Regarding my links:
So he just killed himself for no reason then? It didn’t ruin his life? It’s not about whether or not it was withdrawn Confused, and exactly the point is what happens when someone does this crap. Both the mother and the son committed suicide.
You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides, because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”. If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!
Ignorance…Such ignorance…You’re arguing whether the two I mentioned can truly be classified as false rape.
I never said he had no reason, my stance is your automatic connection between the suicide and the (false?) rape claim is conjecture.
Maybe he he was bipolar and he took his own life in a “down” phase? Maybe he really did rape her and felt bad about his actions and took his own life so he didn’t rape others? Maybe the kid was bullied and took his own life because of that? Maybe the kid didn’t get a new car for college and wanted to teach his parents a lesson?
Unless he left a suicide note explaining why he took his own life, you’re presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that you believe to be true but have no proof to support your argument they were 1-for-1 related.
“You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides…” yes
“…because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”.” no, I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is not heard by the courts and all evidence hasn’t been weighed.
“If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!” no. Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. Both can be fought in court, even when the person knows they’re lying. I mean, how many people commit insurance fraud, get caught, then keep trying to fight it in courts even though the evidence clearly proves they’re lying? It happens a lot.
“I never said he had no reason, my stance is your automatic connection between the suicide and the (false?) rape claim is conjecture.”
No. It’s not. It’s common sense. These people get destroyed in public. It is immoral for you to say it had nothing to do with the false rape claim, which I notice again you are refusing to call it false. You are supporting the narrative I don’t like. You’re assuming they are guilty until proven innocent, and you won’t call an allegation exactly that.
“Maybe he he was bipolar and he took his own life in a “down” phase? Maybe he really did rape her and felt bad about his actions and took his own life so he didn’t rape others? Maybe the kid was bullied and took his own life because of that? Maybe the kid didn’t get a new car for college and wanted to teach his parents a lesson?”
When we look at suicides from accusations of rape, there are quite a lot of these. As a percent of those accused, it is low. As a number, it is a value I don’t like. Much like gun shootings. 10,000 is a value you don’t like. It is a low percentage of the population who is actually affected. The same goes for false rape claims. No one deserves to be ridiculed to death in public and tried in public mob style justice courts, like what Planet is engaging in now.
“Unless he left a suicide note explaining why he took his own life, you’re presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that you believe to be true but have no proof to support your argument they were 1-for-1 related.”
You’re still trying to debate a suicide had nothing to do with the pressure of being accused of rape. This is immoral.
“You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides…”
yes
Immoral. Stresses cause suicide, the only thing you could be saying, is this didn’t add to stress. The only point you’re trying to make here is that rape claims aren’t stressful essentially, and aren’t harmful eh? They are. They definitely contribute to suicides.
“…because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”.”
no, I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is not heard by the courts and all evidence hasn’t been weighed.
Then we shouldn’t be publicly harassing these people based on rape claims, which are false until proven true.
“If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!”
no. Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. Both can be fought in court, even when the person knows they’re lying. I mean, how many people commit insurance fraud, get caught, then keep trying to fight it in courts even though the evidence clearly proves they’re lying? It happens a lot.
Idiot. Idiot!!! IDIOT!!! You missed the point! In the case or REAL false claims, they get withdrawn. How do we track false rape claims, if we only allow them to exist when a jury determines there was actual criminal intent? For example, if a woman “feels” raped, but we see a text in which she agreed to have sex. And the reason she felt raped was social stigmas and she was called a slut for sleeping with the guy. I have seen this happen. So then the claim is dropped, or she withdraws it rather. It doesn’t count in the statistic then eh? Every false rape claim will either be prosecuted (nearly impossible) or more likely, it will be withdrawn. You are claiming that because they were withdrawn they were not false.
That’s a pretty bad assumption to make. However, it is a good assumption to assume that at least some false rape claims go away due to there not being evidence, and at least some, because it didn’t occur. That is not irrational. And if a man committed suicide, and then his mother did as well, we can assume that they both were similar, (genetic) and couldn’t handle what happened.
Common sense. Use it.
October 18, 2016 at 8:22 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You are supporting the narrative I don’t like.”
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false or wrong.
“You’re assuming they are guilty until proven innocent, and you won’t call an allegation exactly that.”
No man. I said it like 4 times already. I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is withdrawn from the courts
“It is immoral for you to say it had nothing to do with the false rape claim”
I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re making me defend “my” stance even though I never said these things.
“You’re still trying to debate a suicide had nothing to do with the pressure of being accused of rape.”
I never said that or argued it. My point was we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
“the only thing you could be saying, is this didn’t add to stress.”
Come on bob. You clearly aren’t paying attention. the only thing I was saying is WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED.
“You are claiming that because they were withdrawn they were not false.”
No sir. Again, I wrote: Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. See how I said BOTH can be withdrawn? Ya?
“Your point is ignorant and doesn’t matter on this”
At least now I know why you aren’t paying attention to what I’m saying and why you’re twisting my words around to suit what you THINK I’m saying instead of what I ACTUALLY posted.
Do me a favor bob. Next time you and I discuss things, could you PLEASE JUST RESPOND TO WHAT I POST and not tell me about 15 other things that I didn’t actually say or imply that you don’t like? You’re telling me all these bad things I’m saying and I haven’t said any of them.
I write what I mean, I mean what I say, and I choose my words carefully. Stop arguing points I didn’t make and ones that I didn’t imply.
October 17, 2016 at 1:43 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PS “and exactly the point is what happens when someone does this crap.”
again, you’re just presuming the allegation is false. you can’t support your theory with evidence. if she wasn’t raped, I’d agree with you. but if she was raped, she can’t be guilty of “this crap” of filling a false rape charge because she was raped!
my point is we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
Bob thinks individual cases that support his position always apply across society. He’s an accused rapist who admittedly supports sexual assault, he’s not credible here, although he has again demanded his definition and interpretation be accepted above those of society.
October 17, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, actually. I use individual examples to hammer home how bad it is on an empathy level. I’ll get back to confused in a moment here.
I use it because I have a heart.
October 17, 2016 at 7:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“again, you’re just presuming the allegation is false. you can’t support your theory with evidence. if she wasn’t raped, I’d agree with you. but if she was raped, she can’t be guilty of “this crap” of filling a false rape charge because she was raped! ”
The likelihood of a rapist committing suicide when they get off the hook, is extremely low. It’s common sense. You are disregarding real suicides because of potential aspects. The “crap” I’m referring to, is when Planet says that allegations are true in public and shame officials. He is doing it now.
The person who committed suicide had his life destroyed, because it was shown as true. Not an allegation. The crap is not really false claims, which are destructive, but how we treat allegations which could be false claims.
“my point is we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
Your point is ignorant and doesn’t matter on this. My point was valid all it’s own. We don’t try people in kangroo courts and publicly shame them over allegations.
October 17, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And I might add:
You’re trying as hard as possible to be pc here. Your basic argument here is:
See, I’m for women!!! They could have been raped! Look how good I am! Look how bad you are!
BBBAAAAADDD BOB!
I’m sorry Confused, I have seen this a lot, and that is what you’re doing.
It’s a clown show. My point was spot on. And here you are derailing.
Get on task on being a moderate, and don’t talk just to hear yourself be moral, or hear yourself speak.
This is absurd. If you don’t have relevant information, don’t debate.
You’re encouraging him and others to call Trump a racist and do public mob style justice, just like black lives matters.
You could rile them up, or you could wind them down. Your choice…What you just did though, was immoral.
You tried to make me seem outside of reality for saying we should not treat allegations as categorically true in the public’s eyes, because when it is false rape, it ruins men’s lives.
It doesn’t matter if the cases I showed you were or were not. It matters that the statement is true.
In the public we should not degrade people and assume they are guilty.
Do you disagree?
I know you will then say “all I was saying is we can’t know”
THEN DON’T ASSUME.
That’s more or less my point. When we do, people get harmed. So then we agree is it?
And if we agree why did this become a freaking debate confused??????
How ignorant are you that our conversations have to turn into paragraphs on simple items???
GROW UP!!!
October 17, 2016 at 7:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And yes, we can’t know when it is false rape, but I emphasize again:
We know that when it is false rape, if we engage in this social justice as Planet has, we ruin the life of the person. We degrade them in person. We don’t need to know who is, and who isn’t, just that it happens.
And that level of degradation, common sense dictates, could make someone lose their job, lose their girlfriends, lose their relationships, as people see them on tv, and cause suicide.
This level of immorality cloaked in some justice and moral lie on your end pisses me off.
October 18, 2016 at 9:26 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you’d like to continue this discussion bob, I replied above.
The first guy to admit to it first and then deny it. None of these right wing maniacs can ever lecture or comment on morals again though so that’s good.
Which I have said many times is your goal, and that is immoral.
We take things on an individual basis. One thing doesn’t make all other things thrown out.
That is close minded regressive left tactics, and it is why I am not a democrat. In my age and younger, this is the PRIMARY tactic when debating policy. They don’t.
They do this, to throw out current debate. You and UW just tried this and I metaphorically curb stomped you when you did, by pointing it out.
It really does not matter what Donald Trump said or not say, did or did not do, meant or anything else. He will not be elected and we will have to put up with at least 4 more years of Republicans/Conservatives spinning anything positive into a negative.
You mean trying to stop bad plans and trying to pass their own, and constantly the media lying saying they aren’t trying to pass things like background checks?
Huge revelations, she should consider a similar policy to the one she supports, and some Sanders fans are whiners.
On the other hand a story that was only reported on a Russian propaganda site, and was taken down because the “bad” lines attributed to Podesta were actually quotes from a reporter’s story was repeated word-for-word by Trump at a rally.
Didn’t Debbie Wasserman —- lose her job at the DNC for her affiliation with Hilliary and the destruction of Bernie’s campaign? Hacked emails can be valuable to reveal how hateful and deceiving Hilliary and her minions actually are.
Latest: Bernie supporters may write his name in on VT ballots.
That could lead to a Trump win in VT.
The repercussions of ‘Dirty’ Wasserman Schultz and the Corrupt DNC Primary Ponzi Scheme on HRC’s campaign could be HYUUUGE!
“Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be President.” B.Obama
“She’ll say anything and change nothing.” B.Obama
This leak is just more proof that she has no real positions. Her positions are fluid and based on what she thinks people want to hear. Though I don’t agree with most of what they support, at least Bernie and Pocahontas stand for something.
She will do anything to gain power. Sadly her supporters continue to drink the cool aid.
Pay her enough and she will change her stance on anything.
She needs to be in prison. Voting for Trump
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! Also, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a 13 year old? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
Trump has enough money to get away with the rape, if he did it, his real legal trouble is with his illegal charity, and using it to bribe prosecutors and for personal gain.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
That is low Captain. Trump didn’t rape any 13 year old. If it were anything but a rumor spread by low lifes, the democrat’s news channel CNN would be all over it.
BTW, I heard Hilliary ….while Bill snapped Polaroids.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436890/
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What about Bill and his numerous trips with his good pal to pedophile island. Nothing to see here.
Oh gosh. I had forgotten about the island. Vomit.
Old Lawman, I wonder what the topic of conversation actually was when Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the end of the runway. Pretty sure it wasn’t about golf or grandchildren.
They talked about Chelsea’s wedding and yoga classes. Bill wondered about women he could pursue at both activities. He asked Lynch not to prosecute him if he were caught doing something illegal at those events.
( Psst! Not true. I just thought I could / should participate in the speculation and wild rumor creation, like everyone else on this thread! :) )
The same pedophile Drumpf is named in a lawsuit with regarding that 13 year old? By the way, Drumpf just used the word “shackles”. Anyone who might be a self-proclaimed deplorable, did you hear the dog whistle when he said that?
Here is a link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436890/
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
CP–will you – and ALL liberals – please stop with the news links? We know how to research items that we want to research. Do you EVER work?!??
If you know how to research why do so many conservatives here post almost exclusively debunked BS?
Example, please.
clarification: my post above is a reply to actu’s post.
I am a registered Independent and, frankly, no, I won’t stop. Because, it’s quite obvious many out here do not do any research. The ill-informed out here is astounding.
While you might have put it a little more tastefully, I do have to agree with your message Cap’n. The same people that were gleefully eviscerating Bill Clinton for his indiscretions 20 years ago are the same people that are somehow ok with Trump’s? Really???
HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. He mocks the disabled. He victimizes women, either verbally or admittedly cheats on his wives. He and his businesses gets sued constantly, in some cases for defrauding. He makes deals with the mafia. He makes crude comments about his own daughter. He disrespects veterans. He essentially threatens to start trade wars. He says he won’t support NATO or our allies. He praises Putin. He claims he’s going to create jobs, defeat ISIS, fix Obamacare, but has no real details on how he’ll do any of this, just that he’ll do it. He speaks about his generosity, but nobody can find any of the huge charitable contributions he’s supposedly made.
Then, unfortunately, there’s the question about his association with Jeffery Epstein. Yes, the same Jeffery Epstein who is a convicted sex offender for soliciting sex from a minor, who is suspected of running a massive sex ring where he arranged underaged encounters for his friends. Yep, the same Jeffery Epstein whose plane Bill Clinton has been a guest on (26 TIMES). Except Trump also flew on Epstein’s plane and attended parties at Epstein’s house…numerous times. Folks, the man is SICK. How can anyone defend this?
He is the single biggest problem with the republican party, and why so many have pulled their support. Have you ever seen a candidate in recent history who has so divided their own party?
Please, if you’re a supporter, ask yourself and ask yourself honestly: if Trump were running as a Democrat, what would you think of him?
Trump is a piece of crap and it’s sad that these two are the candidates for president of the US, but he even looks a bit better than Hillary and her husband, the real rapist, womanizer, and murderer, etc. We could go on and on.
but shouldn’t we hold politicians to higher standards? How is any of Trump’s behavior acceptable to the point where you honestly can say, “I’m ok with that, and he still has my support.” You do realize that pretty much everything you despise about Bill Clinton, Trump has also been accused of, and then some (ok, maybe not murder)?
I submit to you that Trump is basically handing Hillary the election, and his supporters are only enabling him. I honestly think he’s the only one whom Hillary can beat. Really does make you have to question if this was his plan all along…he and the Clintons have been friends for quite some time.
Politicians are supposed to represent US. How did it get to this point???
Louie, short answer. Power politics and special interests and money. I tell you, RINO’s are bought and paid for, Progressive Democrats are bought and paid for and these politicians are so corrupt now, they have to do the bidding of the special interests since that is what funds their re-election campaigns. If we looked into the coffers of any of these politicians, we would see where all that money came from. They are really worried that Trump will upset their applecart. You should realize that Trump is pretty much self funded and has not been corrupted by the big money with his campaign. I applaud him for it. Whatever you think of him as a person, he is 100% better than Hilliary and her merry brigade of Progressive Socialists who will further run the country into the ground.
No doubt, Agent, Mr. Drumpf has contributed to his campaign. He has done so in the form of loans, so he is fully expecting to get that money back. And, he has taken millions in donations as well. Let’s not exaggerate anything here.
Good points planet. I can’t believe how uneducated and uninformed this guy is. Trump has taken in individual donations, private donations, worked with super pacs and taken money from the Republican Party. Most of his supposed self funding has been money to his other companies which he will repay with the loans he takes, or, more likely based on his past, get out from with bankruptcy. One example is how after the campaign when the Republican Party started paying the rent on his campaign operations (not self funded dolts) he drastically increased the rent, which was in a building he owned.
If a person claims Trump is self funded you know that person is an idiot, a liar, or totally uninformed. Agent is all 3.
Not all rape allegations are equal. Some of Clinton’s came before he was high profile and could very well be true.
One of Trump’s only has a book quote that has been said by the victim to be false, and was not in the deposition, and the victim herself said she wasn’t raped.
The other is from what was it, 1994, and is only becoming an issue during a high profile election, just in time to disrupt it, and the attorneys representing the supposed victim are not releasing any evidence to the public.
Trump and Clinton are not equal here.
As for his comments about women, well, I’m going to sound horrible for a moment here:
Even some of the best men I have known, have spoken about getting some similar to Trump. It’s a bragging thing at times, and at others it is around the same time a woman destroyed their self confidence and they are trying to believe they could get anyone they want. In Trump’s case I’m thinking it has more to do with wanting to believe he can have any woman he wants, but regardless, this is not the worst thing for someone to say.
Wanting to have sex with women, and saying women like to be touched and pursued, is hardly the worst thing someone can say or do.
Liberals are backwards on this. They claim sexual freedom, while they also claim attraction and pursuing a woman is criminal and are comparing that to Bill Clinton’s rape allegations which have far more of a chance of actually being true (though I still doubt them.)
There is no conservative hypocrisy here. Rape claims are not equal because someone claimed there was a rape.
You are such a fundamentally dishonest person. Lying Bob. The accusation you continue to lie about was not recanted. Her attorneys have not released the evidence because Trump make her and them sign a non-disclosure agreement. You know this, because I have told you, so when you make the statement you are undeniably lying. People who continually, compulsively lie are liars. Her attorneys have not released the evidence because Trump made them and her sign a non-disclosure agreement. If she did so, or said now it happened, it would cost her millions of dollars; if her attorneys did it they would be disbarred, and also be sued. You continue to lie about this because above all you are a partisan hack. The person who wrote the book you dismiss without reading or looking into has seen the sworn testimony, and it verifies what multiple independent sources say they were told by her. In this case the judge granted the divorce due to cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. That’s not debatable, and it’s largely because of the testimony you lie about.
These new cases are exactly what I presented months ago and you denied despite multiple accusers. They are exactly what he said he did in the recent tapes. You continue to deny everything that doesn’t support your beliefs until the very end.
“Even some of the best men I have known, have spoken about getting some similar to Trump.”
They are called rapists and sexual abusers. They are criminals, and like people who defend them, are degenerate losers. Walking up to a woman and kissing her or grabbing her like Trump and your criminal friends is assault, it can also make a woman afraid to leave, because they are dealing with a criminal psychopath, and then when your friends “get some” for all intents and purposes they are probably raping them. No wonder you are obsessed with “false” rape claims–the “best” people you know seem to be rapists.
“They claim sexual freedom, while they also claim attraction and pursuing a woman is criminal”
No. Going up to a woman and forcing yourself onto them is not pursing somebody, it is in fact, by definition criminal.
Also, I know you are severely confused on almost every issue, but Bill Clinton is not running for president. A lot of confused, deplorable pieces of garbage seem to think he is. I can see how you would think it is the most relevant thing with your backwards views on women, where you view them as property to do what you want to, but that isn’t the case in reality. Also, in the most credible claim of rape against Clinton the accused said:
“These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.” She later changed her story after talking to Drudge. The other two continually lied to investigators, and claimed he had distinguishing marks he did not have; they are almost certainly liars. But, he is not running for president. Trump is, and he has a lot of claims that are all credible, and all match exactly what he said he does.
The people who still support Trump are not just deplorable, they are outright POS. Please Bob, stop lying in every paragraph you write, you have gone completely off the rails and cannot even type coherent sentences with words that are spelled correctly anymore. Deplorables.
Do not ever talk about morals, forcing your BS religion on people, or anything similar, because you are constantly supporting crimes against anybody different than you.
Christians need to consider which party is going to better promote and defend kingdom values and then vote accordingly.
The Democrats feel that Religion is a direct threat to ensuring Civil Rights. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF
They also feel that murdering babies is OK.
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
They also support a Radicalized Islamic Iran that wants to bring death to the indfidels.
So why would a Christian vote Democrat when the Democrats are anti-Christ?
Not at all what that report says. What it does go into is how the US can allow people to exercise their religious freedoms under the First Amendment without infringing on the rights of others. They also don’t support murdering babies; you have to be an idiot, illiterate, or not have read the story or report to think that is what these say.
What you are actually complaining about is not being able to push your beliefs on others, and force them to adhere to your radicalized values. Kind of like you think Iran is doing.
“They also support a Radicalized Islamic Iran that wants to bring death to the indfidels.”
No, clueless, they don’t, or they wouldn’t have forced them to stop pursuing their nuclear program, nor would they have sabotaged it.
Why don’t you grow up? You are making asinine statements and would be better off both to yourself and the world if you just sat in your bathtub all day instead of copying and pasting this hate speech. You are literally almost exactly the same as what you are complaining Iran is in your fantasy world.
UW,
I love your classic liberal argument, “I don’t agree with you, so you are an idiot, clueless, illiterate person who needs to grow up.” It makes me laugh. This is why there is no longer civil discourse in America.
Finding #3 in the report specifically says, “3. Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights.” Then in Finding 7, it specifically states “a basic [civil] right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs; and even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties.”
In summary, that means when a religious exemption is permissible it significantly infringes upon civil rights. It also suggests that some civil rights should not be subject to religion and even a ministerial exemption should be subject to review.
When you go on to read the Recommendations section, this commission also suggests beliefs should be protected but not conduct. This is ludicrous to suggest that you cannot conduct yourself according to your religious beliefs.
Now onto murdering babies. You say they do not support murdering babies, yet on page 46 of the Democratic Party Platform, it says “…we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming.” Murder by definition is the premeditated killing of another human being which is exactly what abortion is.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Please reinstate Glass-Steagall! And, Drumpf is the one most likely to go to prison. Raping a thirteen year old girl? C’mon! We know he has it in him, a couple Tic-Tacs and he’s off to grabbing crotch whether the recipient likes it or not. You don’t have to vote Hillary, but any person who calls him or herself a Christian cannot vote Drumpf. Who would Jesus grope?
You are right captain, but there are people here that clearly don’t care about rape very much, & might even support it. Being a Christian or a good person is far behind being a Republican and a so called conservative.
“You are right captain, but there are people here that clearly don’t care about rape very much, & might even support it. Being a Christian or a good person is far behind being a Republican and a so called conservative.”
Bull crap. No one here supports rape.
You have no evidence of Trump raping a 13 year old girl. He just has it in him. Just like you think I support rape for my comments.
Basically how you speak is rape now. You’re demeaning rape.
Also, if you call yourself Christian Planet, you can’t vote for someone who will harm people to the tune of 330,000,000 by their policies, because you don’t like the individual actions of a person.
We judge by policy. Not by character. Jesus didn’t condemn leaders, and even said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and told people to obey the government and it was there to help them. He also called Caesar more or less immoral.
There is plenty of evidence we are to look at the policy and not the person’s actions.
Also, the woman who was nearly stoned for adultery, should we say she is not able to be a politician? I would say any person can be if they have good plans.
You are creating the exact scenario Jesus fought, a group of religious leaders who control the public calling every other leader sinful. Jesus condemned those leaders. Interesting isn’t it?
“Basically how you speak is rape now.”
Even for you this is idiotic. Please stop, you are writing like an idiot.
“We judge by policy. Not by character.”
Bullshit. Or you would support Obama and Clinton over Bush by miles. Also, you aren’t competent or capable of judging by policy because you don’t know policy.
“If we state that Planet is calling a rape allegation true before a court sentence is even delivered, and state that treating rape as an allegation until proven otherwise is a needed part of society, we are supporting rape?”
Stupid statement. We aren’t saying he is guilty of criminal rape. We are saying he has been credibly accused by a huge, and growing number of women of engaging in deplorable sexual assault that matches almost exactly what he was caught saying he did to women. But, you support that kind of sexual assault, so fuck you, lecherous creep.
Again, you don’t seem to know who is running for president. It isn’t Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Clinton shamed women to the extent you morons claim, or really to any extent. The one example is that she said she appreciated everything an alleged victim did for them, before it was reported. This same person said she was not raped, until the morally bankrupt Drudge Report convinced her to change her story years later.
Stop trying to make analogies, you suck at them, and stop trying to talk about morals, because you support sexual abuse.
Essentially, if we state that Planet is calling a rape allegation true before a court sentence is even delivered, and state that treating rape as an allegation until proven otherwise is a needed part of society, we are supporting rape?
This is ludicrous, is our only method to agree with all false rape claims or be called rape supporters?
We have a rule of law, not mob style justice whenever someone makes a rape allegation, and there are reasons behind this.
Instead you are calling people ludicrous for upholding reasonable law.
You are backwards. This is insanity.
And if what I just said is true, then why do we praise Bill Clinton, who also had rape allegations?
Why could a Christian vote for him? Or the woman who shamed the people who made the allegations?
Is it solely due to Trump being someone you don’t like and therefore could see being a rapist? This is the delusion people like you engage in.
Clinton has no real plans to stimulate the economy, create jobs and help the middle class, therefore she has resigned to name calling and trash talking. If anyone looked closer at her, I am sure she has made rude comments she would not like to be leaked.
If Hillary gets in we will have 4 years of “Rules for Radicals”. Take Debit to unsubstantial levels, government run health care, get media to only report your side, etc…… Obama got us half way, Hillary will finish the race.
So she would unite low-income communities, what is wrong with that? One of the key problems many complain about is that low-income communities don’t have any cohesion which leads to more crime, e.g. gang violence.
I suspect you are just repeating BS about a book you haven’t read, and wouldn’t understand if you did.
One of the key arguments of violence in low income communities is that single parent hood is a driving factor. When couples get married they do well.
What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation (boys are even not allowed in domestic violence safety programs, if they are teenagers so the family is often separated more than you know) instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? Since no fault divorce laws were passed, as well as assistance programs (which do exist) we have had poverty explode for black folks in ways that mirror the time frame before the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Do you really believe there is more racism and institutional oppression of blacks causing this than in 1964? I don’t think you do. Do you believe assistance has gone down for these groups from the government? I don’t think you do. It seems we need to switch things up in the means and the faculty, maybe it’s time to trust republican’s when it comes to making sure the fabric of marriage isn’t destroyed, and that people take personal responsibility when they get married, and we don’t go into a punitive type of governing. Are you aware there are currently 2 million people in jail and 4 million on parole? Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people. Before no fault laws domestic violence was still a reason to get divorced. There was no reason to do that and it harmed everyone. It harms everyone trying to rely on birth control and sex, instead of staying with someone. Birth control isn’t 100% effective as it is. My wife got pregnant the first time while on the depo shot. She’s not the only person I know of this happening, and in fact, birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy, and encouraging people to date and mess around rather than marry. They then sleep with someone they don’t really like, and think the birth control will work. It won’t long term. Then they need abortions eh?
This is out of control.
You want the way to unite and help the poor? Get the government out of encouraging bad behavior.
“What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation”
Mainly Republicans with their harsh drug laws, harsh “law and order” policies, and policies based in racism, but many Democrats have helped them.
” instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? ”
The people you fantasize about here would just be absentee parents. Many are born out of wedlock, and the divorce rate is significantly lower than it was in previous years. Please, for the love of the God you pretend to worship, stop with the ignorant, racist rants. Not everybody wants to live in your slightly different version of Saudi Arabia, where you are bound to a person for life.
“Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people.”
There is no logical, coherent, non-retarded argument where forcing people to stay married leads to less domestic violence. There is no argument where not letting an abused woman get a divorce leads to less domestic violence. Just saying irreconcilable differences is much easier for a woman afraid of being abused than having to go to court, prove she was abused, and then be stuck with the man if she is unlucky enough to get a neanderthal judge that shares the same deplorable, inhumane, outdated views you hold.
“birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy,”
You are honestly making statements dumber than those made by Agent by a mile. You live in a pure fantasy world. Just deplorable in every statement. Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where your views are largely shared.
Shoo fly. I’m not even reading most your derogatory, poorly researched, bigoted, posts.
The best way to deal with people like you is post facts and then just let you go off the rails.
Of course, you can’t reply to anyone who debates you based on reality, eg your bs fantasy math off by 1000s of percent, video evidence contradicting your lies, actual studies by economists instead of bloggers, etc.
Here though, you didn’t post facts, you posted your theories, which are largely based on racism, and on divorce as I stated are actually wrong, divorce rates have declined. I’m certainly not going off the rails, I haven’t had 20 people tell me in the last months to seek professional metal help, unlike you, and I’m not in here justifying murder, torture, rape, and sexual abuse like a degenerate pervert. I’m actually worried about your mental health again, as I was 6 months ago. You are clearly devolving quickly.
“Of course, you can’t reply to anyone who debates you based on reality, eg your bs fantasy math off by 1000s of percent, video evidence contradicting your lies, actual studies by economists instead of bloggers, etc. ”
What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo. The conclusion was that if you take the corporate profits and compare to what they could possibly provide, and the earnings of corporate leaders, taxing corporations does not help the middle class. I was correct.
I do not source quote bloggers!!! Dang it UW I used a .GOV source and did my own math. The revenues were compared to the tax rate, and I’m not talking about the 1000 anymore, I decided to keep it simple to show how you would get more revenues if the 2.6 trillion was brought back home with a lower rate. As well as more jobs. The one who doesn’t debate reality is you. I source quote my numbers, and I give them from .gov sites.
“Here though, you didn’t post facts, you posted your theories, which are largely based on racism, and on divorce as I stated are actually wrong,”
What numbers on this page have I said regarding divorce? I said divorce has gone up since no fault. I said that black folks are engaged in single parenthood at a 70% rate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/
Do we discount CNN now? Don Lemon seems a liberal source.
“Divorce rates have declined. I’m certainly not going off the rails, I haven’t had 20 people tell me in the last months to seek professional metal help, unlike you,”
20 people have not asked me to seek help, and again you are going ad hominem, instead of off of facts. Divorce rates. Divorce rates have declined as compared to what?
To say that divorces that have no fault or reason for divorce have declined is a lie. I have seen the charts, I have seen the claims. Divorce over the last century has fairly steadily gone up, other than recently, and it is still higher now than it was a century ago, in 1910.
“and I’m not here justifying murder, torture, rape, and sexual abuse like a degenerate pervert.”
I have not justified rape. I have said groping is not rape. Unwanted advances are not rape. If a woman tells you to stop, and you stop, you have not raped a woman. You’re a crude moron at that point, but not a rapist. I have not justified torture (of innocents) I have talked about the people who would be saved, and said that torturing terrorists, at a rate of 1,000 to saving 50,000 lives, is worth it. That is not saying torture is good. It is saying that life, is worth more than death. I have never justified murder.
“I’m actually worried about your mental health again, as I was 6 months ago. You are clearly devolving quickly.”
Actually, I’m not. I’m swearing less, engaging more, and am putting more posts up. You just think I’m more and more crazy. It’s because you’re triggered.
“What party is encouraging families to get divorced, is engaged in the domestic violence community in terms of removing the father from the family and separation”
“Mainly Republicans with their harsh drug laws, harsh “law and order” policies, and policies based in racism, but many Democrats have helped them.”
There are no policies based in racism in America. Source required, post a law. Having laws does not separate the families. No fault divorce laws, and then domestic violence focused on an aggressor and a victim, which excludes male children from being in the same shelter, now that is a separation based family system. Instead of treating couple violence as common couple violence, they use the duluth model. This is aggressive jailing policy, that literally separates the family. It isn’t about treatment, it’s about punishing the “guilty” “male” party. Drug laws are not anti family. How many families are broken apart by addictions, and you want to tell me drug laws harm them? Idiotic.
” instead of repairing families, and going back to when you needed a “reason” to get divorced instead of “no fault” divorce laws? ”
“The people you fantasize about here would just be absentee parents. Many are born out of wedlock, and the divorce rate is significantly lower than it was in previous years. Please, for the love of the God you pretend to worship, stop with the ignorant, racist rants. Not everybody wants to live in your slightly different version of Saudi Arabia, where you are bound to a person for life.”
I have said nothing racist here. Who would be absentee parents? Who am I fantasizing about? You don’t even make sense, you are insane. Now my world is similar to Suadi Arabia? Unless you have a reason to get divorced, you should not be able to on a whim. There are consequences to children who then live in poverty. Laws with regards to divorce would not then be comparable to Saudi Arabia, you would have to prove cheating or violence. Both are grounds for divorce. Getting mad that your partner is a dead beat, is not. Finances are one of the leading reasons for divorce, and coincidentally, the children are the ones who live in poverty after the separation, so divorcing for that reason helps no one, and screws over kids.
“Many of those are domestic violence folks (bankrupting families and incurring more government spending) and fathers behind on child support payments. Real good we did with those no fault divorce laws to supposedly protect people.”
There is no logical, coherent, non-retarded argument where forcing people to stay married leads to less domestic violence.”
That was not my comment. The Duluth model is resulting in these men being thrown in jail, rather than treated. See above, whether for being behind on child support payments (the last form of jailing for debt, due to democrats) or for having been in a common couple violence relationship. We have aggressive laws with regards to men who hit women. I’m sorry, even if a guy punches a girl, I don’t support a 3-5 year sentence. I support a 3-5 year rehabilitation program, for both parties. You say I’m pro jails, I’m not. I suppose here again, I’m liberal, I’m sure you will mock me on this one and then say I support violence. I’m prepared for your stupidity. And then if I say they should be in jail you will say I’m pro law and order. It’s a no win scenario for you.
“There is no argument where not letting an abused woman get a divorce leads to less domestic violence.”
As I already said, abuse was grounds for divorce pre no fault divorce laws, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
“Just saying irreconcilable differences is much easier for a woman afraid of being abused than having to go to court, prove she was abused, and then be stuck with the man if she is unlucky enough to get a neanderthal judge that shares the same deplorable, inhumane, outdated views you hold.”
And then here is your justification for that. It’s not easier, and if it is it would be due to your side encouraging jailing husbands. The only scenario in which it would be easier, is if she didn’t want the father of her children to be in jail. Emotionally, no. It would not be easier to say irreconcilable differences. So remind me, who started the Duluth model? Who is encouraging jailing men instead of treating them? Is there any reason that law would only affect women by the way? How about men? My standards are not out dated, or deplorable. Your standards…I would say they are to throw it back at you, but they are just insane.
“birth control is probably the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy,”
“You are honestly making statements dumber than those made by Agent by a mile. You live in a pure fantasy world. Just deplorable in every statement. Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where your views are largely shared.”
Ah, I see, so you just threw insults here, not commentary. So, you don’t have random sex because you believe you won’t have a kid due to birth control? Birth control is 100% effective now is it? I do not support Saudi Arabia style policies. This is insane.
Screw you.
I’m reporting this.
I’ve said I would before, but I am now. This is outright harassment.
Have fun with that.
This is exactly why I normally ignore you.
Am I more insane now UW? Your assaults are getting old, your accusations bleed tin foil hat, your commentary is pathetic, your level of research is idiotic.
You keep on saying blogs. I use blogs, blah blah blah. How about that CNN source I just used?
How about the New York Times, and referencing the same journalist?
You’re a fool. I’m sick of this. Go get your pay check from whoever is paying you for this, and get lost.
If you want to target me, you’ll do better for your employer going after someone like Agent. He can be shown to be stupid and have people dislike his posts, it happens often.
But me, check out my likes to dislikes ratio since I calmed down here.
It’s better than nearly anyone else here.
So attacking me? It’s actually harming the interest of those who employ you. Keep it up. People will see how crazy you are.
>What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo
Don’t need to read any farther than this. You can’t write a paragraph without lying. You were off by thousands of percent, not 1 extra zero, and as they showed w/ the math you were still wrong. Just the math, until it is looked into. You are a joke lately. I can’t imagine you after Trump gets crushed in the election. Can’t believe I thought you were halfway intelligent for a few weeks.
“What am I off on regarding 1000’s of percents? A typo, saying 1000 vs 100 does not matter, when the conclusion didn’t match the typo
Don’t need to read any farther than this. You can’t write a paragraph without lying. You were off by thousands of percent, not 1 extra zero, and as they showed w/ the math you were still wrong. Just the math, until it is looked into. You are a joke lately. I can’t imagine you after Trump gets crushed in the election. Can’t believe I thought you were halfway intelligent for a few weeks.”
Sigh, idiot.
Ok, let me put this slow for you. He’s saying my CONCLUSION was off by 100 to 1000 percent.
A TYPO regarding how many rich there were to poor, in the wealthiest one percent, when vs the wealthiest .01% wasn’t the point of contention.
The point was whether we could get enough taxes from them, and whether it was worth it.
We have nearly more than the total corporate profits in the U.S. out of the U.S. and I gave numbers to prove this.
When we had that debate, instead of looking at the tax rate, and comparing to the revenues we would increase by making the corporate tax rate 15% and bringing them all home, whether I said the top 1% or top .01% (initially) could not pay for the funds, doesn’t change the overall number of the conclusion and the date I gave after that point.
Essentially, if we taxed 15% and brought back those revenues, my numbers were accurate.
Do you want to debate those numbers?
Or can you?
To connect the dots, why single parenthood is the driving factor is that poverty is a large factor.
And when it comes to poverty, the number one item that is an indicator, is single parenthood.
“Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.”
Ok, let me get this through your head:
What you just said is a lie. Trump was talking about the Mexicans that “Mexico” sends over. He is talking about, when he said that, the 509,000 illegal immigrants in our prisons, making up 20% of the prison population for a full population of 330,000,000, and more specifically, the ones that we send back to Mexico out of that group for Mexico to take care of, who cross back over. The wall is to stop mostly that.
Context is indeed needed. You are essentially a triggered useful idiot to the left.
Because you can’t argue policy, you argue sexist, racist, homophobic, and garbage like that.
Bob, The stats you are lying about simply don’t exist, but the most recent comprehensive study debunks it, as they do every single claim you make. Not surprisingly, this is also bordering on outright racism.
As of 2013 according to the Bureau of Judicial Statistics the number of of inmates in state and federal prisons who are not U.S. citizens make up only 5% of the total population, you incompetent, racist, lying, piece of garbage.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/06/donald-trump/trump-immigration-claim-has-no-data-back-it/
*Sigh.*
Again, you’re a fool.
So the government is lying to you then? Here is the link again.
Did you read it?
“United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters”
The UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT the link is a .GOV!!!!
It is not a fact checker site applying a spin.
“To determine the types of offenses criminal aliens incarcerated in federal Types of Criminal and state prison systems and local jails were arrested for, we selected a random sample of aliens. Specifically, we obtained data from BOP on the population of aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008 (approximately 49,000 inmates). We added to this the population o convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under SCAAP (approximately 460,0 inmates) for a total of about 509,000. These two populations were chosen because they were the most recent population data available when we began our analysis. In order to obtain an alien’s arrest history, we needed to first determine which criminal aliens had a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification number. ”
The amount of Illegal Mexicans who have been jailed (509,000, not debatable, many released back over to Mexico only to cross back over, ergo, this is a dynamic number, not at any one given time) Rivals our entire prison population.
Only by twisting words, and making the numbers at any one time, can you conclude that 509,000 illegal immigrants have not been jailed between the time frame, and that we don’t have a 1.5 billion dollar cost.
More on this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/illegal-immigrants-accounted-for-nearly-37-percent-of-federal-sentences-in-fy-2014/
So, important notes, illegal Mexican crime was nearly ten times higher than legal Mexican immigrants.
Digest that for a moment. Politifact shows we apprehended 420,000 Illegals in 2013. 27,000 were convicted of drug trafficking, murder, and other aspects.
That is a huge number.
These are not debatable numbers. You keep thinking you can grab numbers and discount the source. This is the total for federal prosecutions, and it as such does not account for state and local.
As an quick comparison, California has twice as many people in state prisons as federal ones. A link is forthcoming. There are 72,000 in California alone in federal and state prisons.
Politifact is clearly wrong with regards to their numbers. These are state studies ACTU.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421673/nearly-2-billion-spent-jailing-illegal-immigrant-criminals-america-2014
California statistics.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/nov/25/barack-obama/obama-says-illegal-border-crossings-lowest-it-has-/
Politifact reference. California alone though has 72,000. So we can assume my other number is low, and the .gov has a fairly good study but it doesn’t say how many at any given point in time for both the state and federal, it also focuses on federal.
That, California alone, represents a total of 1/6th of those who were stopped in crossing the border. That’s a huge number
Here is another GAO study, which includes the state and federal, it says for 2009 alone it was 296,000.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187
When I say politifact said we apprehended 420,000 I am not counting these in prison totals by the way. I’m talking people we stopped from coming in when I say apprehended.
Keep trying ACTU. You can quote your agenda filled opinion pieces and I’ll continue to source quote .GOV studies.
296,000 in one year, in 2009.
Look at politifact and match up who we stopped from crossing.
That is 556,000. Of the ones we know about, 556,000 tried to cross and were stopped, and we put 296,000 in state and local prisons in 2009.
Holy heck.
Those numbers are not good.
We would have to either assume a LOT of undocumented workers are here that we are not aware of to balance out the numbers. We are ten times higher than both the people apprehended and the ones jailed to get it to normal levels. That would mean that of that total of 852,000 for that year, we would need 8 million to make it a more reasonable percentage, though still absurdly high.
Oy vey I realized I didn’t connect further dots.
So, uniting the poor by default means the issues they have. Black poor people for example think the reason they are poor has to do with being black, and they are divided from that belief from the rest of us. There is fighting, protests, etc. Many areas of poor aspects are the same in a similar way though not as prevalent due to the fact that somewhere around 70% of black parents are single. So the underlying root problem is the same, single parenthood, but the belief of those suffering is that there is a unique problem to a subset of gender or race. This is consistently what democrats do, and it divides them.
Women think it is due to their gender instead of choices, despite no evidence that there are programs stopping their earning potential.
Black folks think it is because they are black.
Gay poor folks think it is because they are gay, even though gay folks make more than straight women and straight men on average. They just don’t make more than married folks all the time.
Mexicans think it is because they are Mexican, and that people hate them immigrating here, when in fact they are just hard workers that often go into low paying crappy labor, which I admit sucks for them, but they blame racism and then eat up the democrats lines.
Divide, conquer, repeat.
No democrat is currently attempting to unite. They are attempting to divide.
Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.
“Odd they think people hate them and support democrats when one party’s candidate calls them rapists and murderers.”
NEVER HAPPENED.
I gave the links and showed what Trump was talking about. He was not calling any group except rapists and murderers that were getting over the border, rapists.
You’re an idiot, stop claiming this lie.
He was talking about two illegal immigrant problems that need a wall to fix it.
1. The 509,000 currently jailed Illegal immigrants from 2006-2010. When we release them to Mexico, they cross right back over. These are the ones he said come right back over, and Mexico is sending their worst.
2. 80% of illegal Mexican women are raped crossing the boarder.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
Look! A liberal source!
Sooooo, these illegal immigrants that are crossing aren’t raping these women? They aren’t “deplorable”? We shouldn’t stop that? We should spend 1.5 billion a year, and jail 509,000? We should allow those people to cross right back over? We should allow those women to be raped?
What? Idiot?
So if I’m wrong 1000’s of times, show me!
It seems like I have in ever post here so far corrected you.
With links, liberal links. I’ve also given you information about colleges you didn’t know. You’re welcome.
I’m sorry, do you not like it when someone is well educated and they speak to you? I must be a pro rape sexist. That’s what it is.
Yeah, when you don’t have an argument that’s the way it always goes.
This is out of hand, and I’m sick of it.
He was referencing illegal immigrants who were crossing that were criminals, a serious problem, that makes up over 20% of our prison population, and costs us 1.5 billion per year.
He was talking about the women who are raped crossing the border.
How should he have phrased it?
You tell me. When talking about illegal immigrants, on the southern border, which means saying illegal Mexican immigrants is the only way to delineate between Canadian in the north and the folks in the south, how else could he have referred to them? He also said “some, I assume, are good people”.
So those 509,000 aren’t criminals.
The 80% of the women raped when crossing illegally, means there isn’t an issue with crime with regards to illegal immigrants?
This is foolish.
You give me how he should have said it.
Did the Huff post site say it wrong? Oh no! They might be calling illegal Mexican immigrants rapists by saying 80% of women are raped! Moron!!!
You’re talking to an educated voter, and you keep belittling me! It is CLEAR I have the most links, the best concepts, of anyone on this site on the right side of the spectrum. The only think that makes you believe I am sexist, racist, pro rape, and all these things is that you believe I am far right wing.
This is deplorable. This is the real deplorable. Your God Hillary, is uniting you all against people you label as sexist, racist, genocidal, etc.
While your side tried to assassinate Trump, and was given air time as to why on CNN. No one took that seriously. While your side just recently flame bombed a Trump campaign center, keeps trying to shut down our rallies, get in our faces until you get punched, and then when you beat our people to bleeding in the streets you ignore that.
It’s insane! I will fight you, and your kin, in the way that counts:
With facts. Not fists.
Good for you NY Broker. Didn’t think there were any up there in that state against her. She bragged that she was re-elected by a greater margin than she won by the first time.
Agent, she didn’t say she won 100% of the vote. What made you think there weren’t any New Yorkers who stood against Hillary during her re-election?
Again taking an expression as literal, in order to discredit someone.
Just like when Hillary asked the fact checkers to verify she had not been fighting ISIS her entire adult life.
This is childish behavior. Did he not speak the way you wanted him to? You oh so liberal liberal you!
Who encourages freedom of speech except for when people don’t talk how you want amirite?
So you like anti-semetic quotes now, and think saying Clinton founded ISIS and has been fighting it yet whole life are ok. Even if he just said a long time its still wrong.
“So you like anti-semetic quotes now, and think saying Clinton founded ISIS and has been fighting it yet whole life are ok. Even if he just said a long time its still wrong. ”
Let’s deal with the comment I actually just said, instead of trying to do what you just did.
I’m talking about Agent’s comments, and about one of Hillary’s regarding fighting ISIS her entire adult life. Do I think that quote is ok? Yes. It is for effect, it is essentially hyperbole. For example Obama’s lip stick on a pig comment, which I also don’t care about.
You’re going to have to source quote the anti-semetic quotes, you’re trying to blend a comment about ISIS in the same concept as saying Hillary has been fighting (and failing) to take care of ISIS her entire adult life.
Also, saying Hillary allowed ISIS to form (which is what Trump was saying, again hyperbole) I think is just fine. You need to stop policing speech and then saying therefore what it means.
Freedom, freedom from oppression ya’all.
Freedom from those pesky people who talk offensive!
Freedom my friends, freedom from the Jews, if we only take this into our own hands and end those Jews oppression!
Freedom my friends, from the oppression of religion. The glory days are coming.
The dog days are over, the dog days are done…Run fast for your mother, run fast for your father. Run for your children, for your sisters and brothers.
Sorry, that came to mind. You feel so freed by the democrats, don’t you?
You’re wrong. I’ve shown how, but that false sense of security and moral high ground makes you feel good, doesn’t it?
Why don’t we look and see what the GOP’s official position is:
“We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment,” –2016 Republican Party platform statement, verbatim.
I heard they are making a sequel to that great Leo DiCaprio film and it will be about Drumpf. They are calling it, “What’s Eating Gilbert Grope?”
When Drumpf told those teenage pageant girls not to worry about him seeing them naked, he’s seen it all before, exactly what did he mean? Did he mean he’s seen teenaged girls naked before? He is currently named in a lawsuit that suggests this is the case. Things that make you go, hmmmm.
Yes, they do make me go Hmmm, because you haven’t provided a source, and you’ve believed every far left claim out there in regards to Trump being a supposed pedophile with far less evidence than Bill Clinton.
These things make me go Hmmm, quite a bit. No source, and when sources are used it is someone who contradicts the rape victim and puts a made up story about bald spots, which in my opinion, if false, the person who wrote that book should be fined and in jail. You don’t get to ruin someone’s life in public, and when it comes to men being accused of rape, many have actually committed suicide over such things ruining their life.
It’s a serious thing, and you need a high standard of evidence. Not literal hearsay.
What you have done in the standard of care in regards to rape claims is nothing short of disgusting.
There are colleges which have laws that if they believe the likelihood is is 50.01% or higher, they are mandated to convict, even without ample evidence. That is due to stupid political fights like this.
You call your opponents disgusting, when all you do is trigger divisive moral high ground battles, which is in itself, disgusting.
Saying a politician is corrupt, broke the law with regards to emails, has bad tax plans, and will ruin the middle class are all political issues, they are not immoral to say.
Saying what you say about Trump however, is.
He’s xenophobic, Islamophobic, homo phobic, against the womens, wants to murder innocent Muslims, hates the Mexicans due to wanting to control a serious illegal immigration issue, as well as build a wall to make sure murderers don’t cross right back over, (clearly happening or we wouldn’t have 509,000 illegal immigrants in jail, making up 21% of the prison population in 2013.)
We can debate whether or not Obama is deporting illegals, but what is more important is how many illegals are making it back over and are currently in jail, and have come here since 2006, as well as how much we spend per year on that.
But instead he’s just racist against Mexicans. Because you can’t debate properly and make everything about morality.
Exactly what 1960 democrats accused republicans of the time of doing.
See, republicans grew up, and became the party of freedom. Democrats never did. They buckled down and used the same divisive tactics they used with segregation at the time.
“There are colleges which have laws that if they believe the likelihood is is 50.01% or higher, they are mandated to convict, even without ample evidence. That is due to stupid political fights like this.”
You are a … idiot. Colleges don’t have their own justice systems that convict people outside of the normal one.
Have you been accused of rape? You are so outside the norm on this there has to be a reason other than stupidity for your bias. People can post thousands of cases where thanks to people like you rape and sexual assault was ignored for every wrongful accusation of rape.
There is a college system regarding expulsion. I am not a fool. These rules are that if they are 50.01% or more likely they are to be removed from the school (my form of convicted) These same colleges push for the same standard in the legal system. Mostly in UK for now, but California has started in on this.
And also, requiring a high level of proof does not make rape and sexual assault trivialized any more than murder. Are you ok with the death penalty? I bet I know the answer. Why aren’t you ACTU? I know demographics. And I know one of the two reasons you aren’t.
1. You might execute an innocent. This is the one where you’re a hypocrite.
2. Eye for an eye leaves the world blind. Murder is never ok.
I am also not for the death penalty. It is for the same reason I’m not ok with requiring rape claims to be taken as by default true, simply because an accusation was made.
Also, have I been accused of rape?
Yes. So has over half the men I have ever known. Two accused me of it. One was my ex. She decided to have sex with me while we were breaking up, while she was getting together with another guy. It upset the guy obviously, so she said it was rape. When we first got together she said the same thing about a gangbang she had…That I later saw her telling one of them how much fun she had (not from rape, it was consensual). She had said it so that I would date her.
The next girl I was drunk and she had sex with me. She was on me the whole night. At another party this woman’s friend started flirting with me. This was quite an attractive woman, and it made the woman I had sex with feel bad about herself. She then started telling me that I had forced myself on her, as if I didn’t remember because I was too drunk, in order to then say how dare you, and make sure I would feel sorry for her. Obviously, I was not drunk enough to forget that this woman was touching me in public on a couch, in public, before getting on top of me under a blanket in said same room. I’ve told you before, I wasn’t always a conservative. The fact that you would call me certain things is absurd. At these same parties I would flirt with gay guys. I’ve done some crazy things, probably more than you.
You aren’t for the death penalty, but support killing family members of terrorists and torturing suspected terrorists, and accused terrorists if there is a 3% chance in your mind of finding information. Many betting tortured die. Clown
This guy probably decided you are too repulsive to deal with. But you don’t get your own definition of convicted,just like you don’t get your own employment figures, versions of quotes, fake math, etc. The standard they use is the same juries use in civil suits, so they are kicking out people accused of rape who would in their minds lose in civil court. There is no conviction and they are free to go to other schools. You are oddly biased in favor of sexual abusers, unless they are Democrats of curse, because that’s above all to you. You have claimed there is no real problem with rape on campuses. You are crazy on this. Hopefully you won’t threaten a civil war killing millions of liberals if society continues to crack down on rape,like you have on other topics.
Based on your comments about what is and what is not sexual abuse nobody can take you seriously as a credible person when you tell your rape story. You have said going to a woman you don’t know, even in the workplace, and grabbing her vagina or kissing her is not sexual abuse, but a way of “getting some”. Even if you didn’t commit a crime you are too deranged on this topic to believe. Also, the FBI research finds that about 3-8% of rape accusations are false, not a huge amount like you claim, that doesn’t count the sexual abuse you have dismissed and supported.
“You aren’t for the death penalty, but support killing family members of terrorists and torturing suspected terrorists, and accused terrorists if there is a 3% chance in your mind of finding information. Many betting tortured die. Clown”
I’m convinced you are a paid troll. I don’t say this often but I keep correcting you about this. Trump did not ever use the word “kill” when referring to family members of terrorists. He said you had to go after their families, be tough with their families, what he mans on this is the social end. You tell these folks look, your husband is going bye bye, and it’s because you supported this. You basically make public consequence for supporting terrorists. The only way you have made this a threat on life, is to go off another comment I showed before. You can’t keep saying I support killing Muslim family members when I constantly disavow that, pathetic clown.
“This guy probably decided you are too repulsive to deal with. But you don’t get your own definition of convicted,just like you don’t get your own employment figures, versions of quotes, fake math, etc.”
Read my other link, it is not my own definition of convicted, and I don’t twist employment number figures. This is bull crap, and you know it.
“The standard they use is the same juries use in civil suits, so they are kicking out people accused of rape who would in their minds lose in civil court. There is no conviction and they are free to go to other schools.”
Saying rapists get off and go to other schools doesn’t say that lowering the standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt is what we should do. If you do that, then innocent people go to jail. I’m sorry, we uphold the law, we uphold innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not me defending and allowing rapists. It is disallowing kangaroo style courts.
“You are oddly biased in favor of sexual abusers, unless they are Democrats of curse, because that’s above all to you.”
Really? Name a democrat I have called a sexual abuser. I even said I refuse to go after Clinton on it. Give me an example. The fact is that YOU have chosen who to hold liable of sexual abuse, except democrats of course, because they have free passes, due to the D. I’m consistent, you’re not.
“You have claimed there is no real problem with rape on campuses. You are crazy on this.”
There isn’t. Numbers prove it, and the only study that shows an issue are ones that include the question “Were you asked for consent” or other aspects that are not rape. I am not crazy on it. You are less likely to be raped on campus than you are off campus. Feminist and democrat Christina Hoff Somers agrees. She is an equity feminist. Though you probably don’t know subsections of groups considering how often you label them. Look her up.
“Hopefully you won’t threaten a civil war killing millions of liberals if society continues to crack down on rape,like you have on other topics.”
I have NEVER threatened civil war!!!! Holy hell UW!!!! I have said it is a matter of time before your side causes a war. Your side has been attacking Trump supporters, engaging in violence at rallies, brown shirting to shut them down, the right is not doing that. At campuses people are shutting down debates they don’t like as hate speech, black lives matters, and you can find the videos, are going on streets saying “Is he a white boy? Get em! No white boys on this street tonight!” Google it! A man was shot and killed at a BLM protest recently. This is all the left. It is only a matter of time, before your side goes to assault a Trump rally and someone fires a gun, on either side. It will result in a war. We simply want to debate on the right, and on the left you simply want to destroy us.
That mentality will start a war. I have threatened NO war!!!
Freaking a you little paid democrat troll. I know you are now. Go ahead, come at me you immature piece of trash. Let’s go! I’m all for taking down a paid troll.
Post your facts little boy.
“I’m convinced you are a paid troll. I don’t say this often but I keep correcting you about this. Trump did not ever use the word “kill” when referring to family members of terrorists. He said you had to go after their families, be tough with their families, what he mans on this is the social end.”
Lyin’ Bob, doing the only thing he knows how to do, lying to normalize crazy Republicans. He didn’t say anything about social, he said “take them out.” There is no rational reason to think he meant anything else, anyone who thinks otherwise is an outright liar or the dumbest rube on the face of the earth. Saying you told me over and over didn’t change the facts;I’m not you watching Fox, repetition of BS doesn’t make me think it is true.
Oh wait, I just got it, he meant get tough, do more, be extreme, and take them out to dinner!
Give me a break with that weak crap, kiddo. Stick to bragging about sexual assault and rape with your degenerate friends, like you’ve admitted you do, because your analysis of this is a joke.
It’s funny how the first assumption you make is I must be an idiot…When I source quote laws all the time, rather than you might be misinterpreting what I say.
It’s very funny. You’re not as think as you smart you are.
I know it feels good to call everyone else a sexist and a rapist and against people, but it’s not ok.
It’s all about the Benjamins…Ahem, I mean the policy. Hey.
For me it’s not the first assumption, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt after reading about 1000 pages worth of idiotic, factually incorrect, wrongheaded, racist, unintelligent rantings.
You think sexual assault is ok. You are a POS. Delete your account.
“For me it’s not the first assumption, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt after reading about 1000 pages worth of idiotic, factually incorrect, wrongheaded, racist, unintelligent rantings.”
Name one. Also, for this one, you were wrong. Soooo…You might be over thinking your abilities. And I proved it with a source quote.
“You think sexual assault is ok. You are a POS. Delete your account.”
No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.
Climate change, unemployment, Trump didn’t say kill terrorists families, increased minimum wage costs jobs, Reagan proposed spending cuts, Republican health care plan should not be revealed because it can’t pass oh wait bills should be brought up anyways, the bill adds up (it didn’t, it cuts insurance massively to young people), Republicans aren’t obstructionist, oh they should obstruct Obama, it’s not unprecedented or obstructionist to refuse a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Trump didn’t want to deport citizens…
>No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.
Your said going and grabbing a woman by her vagina isn’t sexual assault, that isn’t “approaching a woman”, that is being a perverted sexual abuser, which you support. You hold the viewpoints of absolute scum in this topic because you’re a sexist idiot.
“Climate change, unemployment,”
What specific number did I say that was wrong? Quote it. You are incorrect that I have been “wrong here” I have compared the LPR during Reagan and Obama, where it has gone up now, and then I gave links showing it was not the baby boomers causing that. That is as far as I have gone with regards to unemployment. Do you want to take that debate now? In regards to climate change, I pointed out that 97% of scientists do not agree that man made climate change is both primarily man mad and catastrophic, I gave links, I’m not wrong there. How specifically am I wrong regarding climate change? What about it?
“Trump didn’t say kill terrorists families,”
He didn’t. It’s on you to provide a link with context showing he did. When he said “you have to go after their families” he did not once say murder or kill. Soooo…You’re drawing that conclusion. Otherwise, source quote and prove me wrong, that’s all you have to do ACTU. And I would agree with you. But you haven’t, still, you just keep saying I’m wrong. Prove your points, like I do.
“increased minimum wage costs jobs,”
The jury is in debate on this one, and I have also said to agent, I wasn’t sure how the law in WA state did regarding it and I would not jump to conclusions. Also, you cannot “prove” me wrong on this one, since the science on this one is subjective and depends on the minimum wage bill. If it is a blanket one, yes, it costs jobs. Smaller businesses can’t afford it, and they make up as (lie) Obama said, 97% of the job creators. I added that lie because it is one, and because if it were true, no one would be able to afford a $15 dollar minimum wage with a base $500,000 revenues for 5-10 employees. I have seen profit loss sheets, they can’t afford it.
“Reagan proposed spending cuts”
He did, and I source quoted it.
“Republican health care plan should not be revealed because it can’t pass oh wait bills should be brought up anyways, the bill adds up (it didn’t, it cuts insurance massively to young people),”
Re read what you put here. It’s hard to see what you’re saying. It couldn’t pass, and it would lower premiums by 21% compared to the democrat plan. It also gave subsidies for help, and tax write offs for paying for insurance. This means the only reason the uninsured rate would be lower, is because people would choose to go without insurance. It does not cut insurance for young people. It offers them credits to pay for it, just as much as Obama’s plan, and reduces the cost 21%. So…Yeah. Those are facts as per the CBO evaluation. You can’t just make up your own.
“Republicans aren’t obstructionist,”
Blanket statement, proof needed. I did show laws that democrats blocked and the lied in public about. Regardless, this would be an opinion of yours and mine. You would have to prove me wrong on an individual basis, and you haven’t. To prove republicans are obstructionists you would have to prove it on a blanket basis, rather than an individual, and you haven’t.
“oh they should obstruct Obama, it’s not unprecedented or obstructionist to refuse a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee,”
It’s not unprecedented. When our nation was new, there were several appointments that took 200-300 days. Look it up, I’m not giving you the numbers.
” Trump didn’t want to deport citizens…”
It wasn’t about deporting citizens, that’s a lie. A citizen cannot be deported. He wanted to rather than leave kids with no parents, send them back with their parents. So are you saying you would rather leave the children without their parents, and put them in the adoption agencies? What is your solution? Amnesty? Allowing people to come in illegally, have kids, and use those kids for permanent residency, while then we have to restrict people who come legally, because we do have a capacity of which if we surpass it we will break the system? What’s your solution ACTU?
“>No. I don’t. I don’t consider a man approaching a woman sexual assault though. Nice try.”
“Your said going and grabbing a woman by her vagina isn’t sexual assault, that isn’t “approaching a woman”,”
No I didn’t. I said groping, or touching, is vulgar. Saying you can grab someone by the pussy is not the same as doing it, and also, he was talking about women interested in him. Not women who were not. That is tantamount to bragging, not sexual assault. He was not talking about randomly grabbing a woman’s crotch. Idiot.
“that is being a perverted sexual abuser, which you support.”
No, it’s not. And you’re sick for saying it.
“You hold the viewpoints of absolute scum in this topic because you’re a sexist idiot.”
No, I don’t. End of story. Get back to school baby boy.
Some of Reagan’s budget cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/11/us/reagan-proposals-detail-further-trims-in-budget.html
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal81-1172455
“In a message accompanying the details of his budget for fiscal 1982, Reagan claimed that his plan to reduce federal spending by $48.6 billion in fiscal 1982 and lower taxes by $53.9 billion would help move America “back toward economic sanity”
“Reagan recommended that total federal spending be held to $695.3 billion in fiscal 1982, with budget authority of $772.4 billion, revenues of $650.3 billion and a deficit of $45 billion”
“As the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Alice M. Rivlin, told the Senate Budget Committee at a hearing March 11, his fiscal plans “represent a radical redirection of the federal budget.””
Obviously, he was not able to get the democrats to side with him on this. He settled with tax cuts, that was not his goal.
Also, what I did do was say that Trump’s comments, while egotistical, were nothing extraordinary.
He thinks he is the big man, and wants to be the big man, and odds are plenty of women wanted him.
What you are doing is hypothesizing based on lewd comments that he therefore must have done that to a woman who didn’t want him to.
Let me give an example:
If a woman wants me, and I know it, and I grab her and kiss her, and later brag about how women want me to grab and kiss them, that is not sexual assault. It’s me being a douche.
Nothing about Trump’s comments imply there is no “consent”. You are implying that must be the case. Think back to every sexual encounter you have had. There was a moment when you both knew you wanted each other, and you moved forward. Trump is basically talking about that while bragging.
He’s basically vulgar, and you then say his words must mean he assaulted some woman. No. You need evidence for that, and one of the recent women who talked about the airplane incident, was proven wrong by the facts of the people on the airplane. It’s not just this witness either. Several people say her account is incorrect.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/
Look it up.
Whether you like it or not, you’re talking a speech that Trump spoke poorly, he has no plan presented that he currently supports to kill terrorist families.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d
Otherwise show me the plan proposed.
He is talking being harsh with the religion, being harsh with the families, which we need to do.
The liberals, take out the families of Christian radicals, and rightly so.
Keeping the religion in check is a good thing. Look, a moderate quote!
I think we should ride the heck out of religious zealotry on any side.
And ultimately, I think Trump gets to decide what his own words mean ACTU, not you.
So the CBO talked about Reagan’s spending cuts that didn’t exist,
Media reported on these plans that didn’t exist,
And…
They just didn’t exist!
Gotcha!
ACTU, you’re beyond a fool. Haven’t you learned by now I source quote everything?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/
The actual longest times for supreme court vacancies.
The lie from the media:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/merrick-garland-now-holds-record-longest-supreme-court-wait-n612541
The way they made this not a lie, was to say this is the longest someone has not received an up or down vote. In present day, this is the same thing as a down vote in the past. This is their way of saying no. Otherwise, it would be untrue that Merrick is taking the longest to appoint.
And saying no to a Judge nominee, for a president who has consistently tried to push for government over reach, is the way our congress is meant to work, checks and balances.
It isn’t obstruction, it’s due process.
With regards to guns and sound background checks, we actually have agreeable measures. When democrats refuse to pass the expansion without an amendment addressing firing ranges, they are being obstructionists. They can pass what they want later, or put it up to vote on it’s own. But they consistently refuse to do this.
The terrorist background check was the same thing. They wouldn’t pass it on it’s own, they wanted their added pork. No added freaking pork should be in my bills. We address issues one at a time. Background checks are background checks, you don’t get to insert your regulations for firing range businesses at the same time.
So now I’ve shown actual obstruction and compared it to checks and balances, that is a full and thoughtful concept for me to present.
How many sources have I used? How many laws have I quoted, now and in the past?
You haven’t. You quote what some tabloid style reporter says like national enquirer. It’s bluntly ignorant.
So, now allow me to do what you tried to do with me, which is show you were you have ACTUALLY been wrong:
You were wrong regarding college “convictions”. You didn’t even know what they were.
You were wrong regarding Merrick being the longest in history to be appointed a judge.
Links prove both these things. They aren’t matters of opinion.
You were wrong that Reagan never proposed spending cuts.
The rest I will give you passes as just being matters that are debatable, but these I will not.
You could be right about minimum wage. I could be right. I actually tried to back up my argument, and to UW’s credit, he also did, but he mislead the details trying to say every “credible” economist thought minimum wage increases didn’t harm unemployment, which was a lie. However, if he left that out, I would have respectfully just thought his research didn’t prove that minimum wage didn’t affect unemployment, and that we should be careful about such laws.
Regarding climate change: I’m not incorrect about what I have said about climate change, and I have not argued it doesn’t exist. I don’t want to really say you’re wrong here, because here is the kicker, you extremists don’t realize: I do believe it exists. I do not like it when people say 97% of scientists agree with it. I recently gave a link showing it was more 50/50, and this time I specifically gave one that was climatologists. However, me saying this isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about allowing open debate on it, which you and UW have insisted anyone who questions say a carbon tax credit as being an unethical government means to revenues that are morally unquestionable, which is risky, and that those numbers factually cannot have a large affect on climate change, which means this has a huge cost without affect, you have labeled these people as insane. THAT is insane.
THAT is my issue. Your totalitarian bull crap, of agree with all or die.
I AM a moderate. I have explained how so, but if I don’t go far left, you go full attack on how much of a rapist and murderer I am. You social justice warrior hacks are out of control and need to be stopped.
The rest of these should be debatable issues, but you don’t allow that, do you?
I didn’t word the climate change thing properly when I mentioned I believe it is real:
I do not believe that man made climate change is catastrophic on a global level.
I believe it can destroy eco-systems, which is bad in particularly third world country nations for whom it is hard to rebuild. Whether that can be changed by governmental law, and whether or affect is that large, is another story.
There are those on the left stating we will destroy the planet, and that 97% of scientists agree we will destroy the planet. That is a lie.
It will continue to be a lie. It always was a lie.
Now you are lying saying you were always saying scientists aren’t in agreement on the severity of the impact and not how many agreed. That’s not true. Then you prove part of my point by reposting the same links you always post. Ron, uw and I have all commented that this fucking link you paste every time skips most of his presidency and he actually offered a bigger budget which is why he was against the budget presented. But you are too pig headed and stupid to look beyond the article you like confirming your belief.
>The jury is in debate on this one, and I have also said to agent,
It’s really not. Again Ron confused and uw served your ass to you on this, and one provided a comprehensive study showing all academic research on the topic which you lied about reading and clearly didn’t understand. That’s when I realized you were a fucking clown pretending to be a smart serious person.
The rest was ts;dr. Stick to hate speech and praising sexual assault Bob.
And regarding catastrophic climate change being majority man made:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
The key words are the difference, and the key words are being used to mislead. It is known as CAGW.
This is where democrats mislead people about a consensus.
“Now you are lying saying you were always saying scientists aren’t in agreement on the severity of the impact and not how many agreed. That’s not true.”
No, you always assumed, I always said that 97% of people did not agree with global warming, and this is what I meant. If you are now agreeing that global warming consensus does not extend to CAGW you are agreeing I was correct, I did not lie.
“Then you prove part of my point by reposting the same links you always post.”
Uh, no, and you will have to verify that. The Judge Merrick one is new, the Reagan one has one old one and one new one, and whether or not they or old does not make them false. Please disprove my links, with contrary evidence, rather than Ad hominem.
“Ron, uw and I have all commented that this fucking link you paste every time skips most of his presidency and he actually offered a bigger budget which is why he was against the budget presented.”
No, he offered larger budgets after democrats refused to let him have the lower budgets and called it radical. And I have told you THIS every time. He could not stop the democrats. Ron told me the buck stops with him, and if he had a good plan democrats would have passed it, you two differ from Ron and instead claim that Reagan never sought lower budgets, that is a lie. Ron says he failed, and blames him. You’re delusional. I say Ronald failed, and it is precisely your side that blocked him.
“But you are too pig headed and stupid to look beyond the article you like confirming your belief.”
Flip it around, and the issue is you. And, you started swearing when I broke this down, so…Yeah.
Psycho much?
CBO report regarding Reagan’s first budget proposal, note the sections going over reduced spending by changing the increase in spending from 13% to below 6%.
The first year, most of Regan’s deficit was actually the tax cuts, which take time to produce increases in revenue, and which ultimately, did their job, but were the actual reason for the first year deficit.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/97th-congress-1981-1982/reports/81doc19.pdf
Regan proposed stopping a default 13% increase in spending that was going to occur. He certainly got in the way of spending increases.
Or is this CBO report garbage too?
Also,
That was after the fight regarding the first items, which they were debating about in public. As Reagan was trying to make these spending cuts possible, and finally passed the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in August of 1981, many different things were debated in the public eye.
Also, this bill was introduced by a democrat.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/97/hr3982
Do, your, research, .
Reagan worked with what he had. Presidents only push their plans in public. What you don’t realize is, they don’t start bills.
You are so foolish, the president does not co sponsor bills.
Do you know how bills are planned?
He gets guys together, gives them a guideline, and says “I want these things”
The a bunch of politicians go to sponsor, and co sponsor, bills, to bring them to the floor.
When you have evidence that Reagan had things he wanted in the public eye, that he outlined and said “give me this” that the CBO commented regarding, that was his plan.
What he got, was a different story.
What Obama said in public, was exactly what he got. This is something I have told Ron often. Reagan didn’t get what he wanted, Obama did.
I can blame Obama for what he did get. I can blame democrats for what Reagan didn’t.
He always calls me a hypocrite here, but he’s not thinking well enough on this, and applies what I call false equivalency of circumstance based on different presidents and different scenarios.
I have to all caps this:
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS LEVEL OF RESEARCH. I just gave you who sponsored the bill that was passed, and explained it didn’t line up with Reagan’s wants.
And you blame Reagan still. Astonishing how ignorant you are, and yet you keep calling me as such.
I also noticed you didn’t make any comment about the areas of the college 50.01%, nor did you about the comments you made about Judge Garland Merrick. Is that because you realize you were wrong?
And at that point, isn’t it entirely inappropriate, considering this shows I can be right, for you to then claim I don’t know what the F I’m talking about?
You aren’t a God in information, and neither am I. When you attach insults to well thought out conclusions, you ruin discord. It’s not ok.
Even if I were wrong, and I’m not about Reagan’s spending, it wouldn’t give you the ok to then on an unrelated topic, state that I’m wrong all the time, to state that I must be wrong now.
When you said that, that I’m wrong all the time, you said it to disregard something that I have now proven you were actually wrong on.
This means you focused on other arguments, to pull away from the current one.
That isn’t proper debate. I will focus on each one in the now.
https://www.thefire.org/standard-of-evidence-survey-colleges-and-universities-respond-to-ocrs-new-mandate/
Read up.
It takes a whole different level of stupid on your part to think I was stating a College tries someone in criminal liability.
Actu, what you basically said here was so ignorant I cannot believe it.
You actually think that republicans are this stupid. That’s the problem, with both you and UW.
So, now that I proved you don’t know what you’re talking about, where’s your apology and admittance you are wrong?
Let this be a lesson to both you and UW.
When I say something, I’ve researched it, and I know what I’m talking about.
So the next time you assume I haven’t, and am “clueless” as you guys say so often, maybe you need to realize you have a bigoted bias against republicans. Maybe.
Also, the fact that you didn’t automatically know what I was talking about means you have never researched this, so if you come back debating on it, I’m not going to believe anything you say without source quotes.
If you knew about the 50.01%, you would have known what I was talking about the moment I said 50.01%.
So don’t go pack pedaling saying you knew this.
Also, I’m going to ask you simple questions:
Should we lower the standard of conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) for rape, if it jails innocent people because we want to make sure we put every rapist in jail?
Why should we not apply the same standard to murder and assault cases?
Do you believe that people who falsely accuse others of rape should be punished for doing so?
On that last one I’m fairly sure you will say no, but people commit suicide, go to jail, and lose their life and respect over this. False rape claims should be a criminal offense.
And it is not uncommon.
You need to have your hearing checked by a qualified doctor.
After implementation of The ACA, do you still have your original doctor? Your prior policy / plan? Your 40 hours-a-week job? Any job?
Clarification: my post above is a reply to Captain Planet’s glib remark about a DiCaprio sequel to Wolf of Wall St called ‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grope’. The dozens of intermediate posts leads to confusion as to what I am replying to, thus this clarification is needed.
No, it’s a sequel to “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, but thanks for trying out!
I still have mine, as most people do. I don’t think it’s a coincidence the people whining about this are intolerable idiots.
More comments encouraged by your leader, the great unifier Hillary Clinton.
Because everyone who doesn’t support her is an intolerable idiot.
You need to back up what you say. That’s not on me, it’s on you. If you’re failing, you need to source quote.
If you want to call someone an idiot, you need to point out the facts and why they are wrong.
Simply saying idiot, doesn’t work.
You’re such a child, and yet you perceive everyone else as being one.
You’re accusing me of being a pro rape supporter while I say contrary. You’re calling me sexist, racist, while I explain what the issues are, and I do not make them matters of sex or race, I make them about facts.
The only one obsessed with race, sex, and other comments, is you!
Yes to all of your questions, Yogi. My premium decreased and no increase in ded, either. First time EVER my health insurance premium did that. Thank you, President Obama!
You lie as much as Obama, Kerry, and Vallerie. But perhaps not yet as much as Bill & Hill.
No lies at all. I was SHOCKED about the premium. We’ll see what happens this year, but last year was flipping awesome! And, I am way better under President Obama than I was under any other President. Career is stronger, finances are better, it has been a prosperous time in the Captain Planet household.
Chris Hansen is coming back? I smell a Drumpf sting!
When you push for the rape claim to be accepted with little to no evidence, crap like this happens:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/mother-of-son-who-hanged-himself–after-being-accused-of/
Firs the son, then the mother.
Link 1 — “An earlier version of this report wrongly described the rape allegation made against Jay Cheshire as ‘false’. In fact it was simply withdrawn. We apologise [sic] for the error.”
Maybe she was raped and maybe she wasn’t. Just because you withdraw an allegation in court is not proof that said issue didn’t happen. It just means you’re not pursuing it further in that venue.
Link 2 — ‘The evidence did not, and was never going to, prove rape. The prime overriding consideration in the CPS’s decision had been merely that the complainant wished the case to go ahead. It was little short of a craven abdication of responsibility for making an independent and fair-minded assessment of the case’
So the person who lied and claimed rape wasn’t believed because there was no evidence to support her claim. There were witnesses too who proved she was lying.
I don’t think anyone is actually trying to argue that “you claimed you were raped? okay. we believe you. no trial – let’s just send the supposed rapist to jail” are they?
Yes, they are.
Planet by definition is doing that by ranking “allegations” against Trump as true, and is focusing on them to no end.
Regarding my links:
So he just killed himself for no reason then? It didn’t ruin his life? It’s not about whether or not it was withdrawn Confused, and exactly the point is what happens when someone does this crap. Both the mother and the son committed suicide.
You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides, because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”. If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!
Ignorance…Such ignorance…You’re arguing whether the two I mentioned can truly be classified as false rape.
I never said he had no reason, my stance is your automatic connection between the suicide and the (false?) rape claim is conjecture.
Maybe he he was bipolar and he took his own life in a “down” phase? Maybe he really did rape her and felt bad about his actions and took his own life so he didn’t rape others? Maybe the kid was bullied and took his own life because of that? Maybe the kid didn’t get a new car for college and wanted to teach his parents a lesson?
Unless he left a suicide note explaining why he took his own life, you’re presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that you believe to be true but have no proof to support your argument they were 1-for-1 related.
“You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides…”
yes
“…because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”.”
no, I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is not heard by the courts and all evidence hasn’t been weighed.
“If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!”
no. Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. Both can be fought in court, even when the person knows they’re lying. I mean, how many people commit insurance fraud, get caught, then keep trying to fight it in courts even though the evidence clearly proves they’re lying? It happens a lot.
“I never said he had no reason, my stance is your automatic connection between the suicide and the (false?) rape claim is conjecture.”
No. It’s not. It’s common sense. These people get destroyed in public. It is immoral for you to say it had nothing to do with the false rape claim, which I notice again you are refusing to call it false. You are supporting the narrative I don’t like. You’re assuming they are guilty until proven innocent, and you won’t call an allegation exactly that.
“Maybe he he was bipolar and he took his own life in a “down” phase? Maybe he really did rape her and felt bad about his actions and took his own life so he didn’t rape others? Maybe the kid was bullied and took his own life because of that? Maybe the kid didn’t get a new car for college and wanted to teach his parents a lesson?”
When we look at suicides from accusations of rape, there are quite a lot of these. As a percent of those accused, it is low. As a number, it is a value I don’t like. Much like gun shootings. 10,000 is a value you don’t like. It is a low percentage of the population who is actually affected. The same goes for false rape claims. No one deserves to be ridiculed to death in public and tried in public mob style justice courts, like what Planet is engaging in now.
“Unless he left a suicide note explaining why he took his own life, you’re presuming a cause-and-effect relationship that you believe to be true but have no proof to support your argument they were 1-for-1 related.”
You’re still trying to debate a suicide had nothing to do with the pressure of being accused of rape. This is immoral.
“You are then trying to say that false rape claims might not be causing the suicides…”
yes
Immoral. Stresses cause suicide, the only thing you could be saying, is this didn’t add to stress. The only point you’re trying to make here is that rape claims aren’t stressful essentially, and aren’t harmful eh? They are. They definitely contribute to suicides.
“…because the cases were “withdrawn” instead of it being “false”.”
no, I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is not heard by the courts and all evidence hasn’t been weighed.
Then we shouldn’t be publicly harassing these people based on rape claims, which are false until proven true.
“If we went with this confused, any potential false rape claim would of course, be withdrawn!”
no. Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. Both can be fought in court, even when the person knows they’re lying. I mean, how many people commit insurance fraud, get caught, then keep trying to fight it in courts even though the evidence clearly proves they’re lying? It happens a lot.
Idiot. Idiot!!! IDIOT!!! You missed the point! In the case or REAL false claims, they get withdrawn. How do we track false rape claims, if we only allow them to exist when a jury determines there was actual criminal intent? For example, if a woman “feels” raped, but we see a text in which she agreed to have sex. And the reason she felt raped was social stigmas and she was called a slut for sleeping with the guy. I have seen this happen. So then the claim is dropped, or she withdraws it rather. It doesn’t count in the statistic then eh? Every false rape claim will either be prosecuted (nearly impossible) or more likely, it will be withdrawn. You are claiming that because they were withdrawn they were not false.
That’s a pretty bad assumption to make. However, it is a good assumption to assume that at least some false rape claims go away due to there not being evidence, and at least some, because it didn’t occur. That is not irrational. And if a man committed suicide, and then his mother did as well, we can assume that they both were similar, (genetic) and couldn’t handle what happened.
Common sense. Use it.
“You are supporting the narrative I don’t like.”
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false or wrong.
“You’re assuming they are guilty until proven innocent, and you won’t call an allegation exactly that.”
No man. I said it like 4 times already. I’m saying we can’t know if there was or wasn’t a crime committed solely because a case is withdrawn from the courts
“It is immoral for you to say it had nothing to do with the false rape claim”
I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re making me defend “my” stance even though I never said these things.
“You’re still trying to debate a suicide had nothing to do with the pressure of being accused of rape.”
I never said that or argued it. My point was we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
“the only thing you could be saying, is this didn’t add to stress.”
Come on bob. You clearly aren’t paying attention. the only thing I was saying is WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED.
“You are claiming that because they were withdrawn they were not false.”
No sir. Again, I wrote: Both false and true claims can be withdrawn. See how I said BOTH can be withdrawn? Ya?
“Your point is ignorant and doesn’t matter on this”
At least now I know why you aren’t paying attention to what I’m saying and why you’re twisting my words around to suit what you THINK I’m saying instead of what I ACTUALLY posted.
Do me a favor bob. Next time you and I discuss things, could you PLEASE JUST RESPOND TO WHAT I POST and not tell me about 15 other things that I didn’t actually say or imply that you don’t like? You’re telling me all these bad things I’m saying and I haven’t said any of them.
I write what I mean, I mean what I say, and I choose my words carefully. Stop arguing points I didn’t make and ones that I didn’t imply.
PS “and exactly the point is what happens when someone does this crap.”
again, you’re just presuming the allegation is false. you can’t support your theory with evidence. if she wasn’t raped, I’d agree with you. but if she was raped, she can’t be guilty of “this crap” of filling a false rape charge because she was raped!
my point is we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
Bob thinks individual cases that support his position always apply across society. He’s an accused rapist who admittedly supports sexual assault, he’s not credible here, although he has again demanded his definition and interpretation be accepted above those of society.
No, actually. I use individual examples to hammer home how bad it is on an empathy level. I’ll get back to confused in a moment here.
I use it because I have a heart.
“again, you’re just presuming the allegation is false. you can’t support your theory with evidence. if she wasn’t raped, I’d agree with you. but if she was raped, she can’t be guilty of “this crap” of filling a false rape charge because she was raped! ”
The likelihood of a rapist committing suicide when they get off the hook, is extremely low. It’s common sense. You are disregarding real suicides because of potential aspects. The “crap” I’m referring to, is when Planet says that allegations are true in public and shame officials. He is doing it now.
The person who committed suicide had his life destroyed, because it was shown as true. Not an allegation. The crap is not really false claims, which are destructive, but how we treat allegations which could be false claims.
“my point is we don’t know if she was or wasn’t raped and the case being withdrawn doesn’t prove it either way. nor does the kid’s suicide prove she was or wasn’t raped either.
Your point is ignorant and doesn’t matter on this. My point was valid all it’s own. We don’t try people in kangroo courts and publicly shame them over allegations.
And I might add:
You’re trying as hard as possible to be pc here. Your basic argument here is:
See, I’m for women!!! They could have been raped! Look how good I am! Look how bad you are!
BBBAAAAADDD BOB!
I’m sorry Confused, I have seen this a lot, and that is what you’re doing.
It’s a clown show. My point was spot on. And here you are derailing.
Get on task on being a moderate, and don’t talk just to hear yourself be moral, or hear yourself speak.
This is absurd. If you don’t have relevant information, don’t debate.
You’re encouraging him and others to call Trump a racist and do public mob style justice, just like black lives matters.
You could rile them up, or you could wind them down. Your choice…What you just did though, was immoral.
You tried to make me seem outside of reality for saying we should not treat allegations as categorically true in the public’s eyes, because when it is false rape, it ruins men’s lives.
It doesn’t matter if the cases I showed you were or were not. It matters that the statement is true.
In the public we should not degrade people and assume they are guilty.
Do you disagree?
I know you will then say “all I was saying is we can’t know”
THEN DON’T ASSUME.
That’s more or less my point. When we do, people get harmed. So then we agree is it?
And if we agree why did this become a freaking debate confused??????
How ignorant are you that our conversations have to turn into paragraphs on simple items???
GROW UP!!!
And yes, we can’t know when it is false rape, but I emphasize again:
We know that when it is false rape, if we engage in this social justice as Planet has, we ruin the life of the person. We degrade them in person. We don’t need to know who is, and who isn’t, just that it happens.
And that level of degradation, common sense dictates, could make someone lose their job, lose their girlfriends, lose their relationships, as people see them on tv, and cause suicide.
This level of immorality cloaked in some justice and moral lie on your end pisses me off.
If you’d like to continue this discussion bob, I replied above.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280926/Student-cleared-rape-emerges-second-man-committed-suicide-falsely-accused-woman.html
More suicides.
Rapey McRaperson (allegedly)/Pence 2016!
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-words-echo-womans-allegations-507763
The first guy to admit to it first and then deny it. None of these right wing maniacs can ever lecture or comment on morals again though so that’s good.
Oh right.
Which I have said many times is your goal, and that is immoral.
We take things on an individual basis. One thing doesn’t make all other things thrown out.
That is close minded regressive left tactics, and it is why I am not a democrat. In my age and younger, this is the PRIMARY tactic when debating policy. They don’t.
They do this, to throw out current debate. You and UW just tried this and I metaphorically curb stomped you when you did, by pointing it out.
It really does not matter what Donald Trump said or not say, did or did not do, meant or anything else. He will not be elected and we will have to put up with at least 4 more years of Republicans/Conservatives spinning anything positive into a negative.
Yippeee!
You are out of your mind.
You mean trying to stop bad plans and trying to pass their own, and constantly the media lying saying they aren’t trying to pass things like background checks?
Drumpf – I am going to be the law and order candidate. First thing I’ll have to do is have myself arrested for alleged sexual assault.
Drumpf is a derogatory bigoted name. I will not continue to warn you.
Cease it’s use.
Bob,
When has anyone headed your warnings?
Are you OK with Donald Trump’s derogatory name-calling and insults?
It seems like many people have lost sight of the topic of this comment section.