Rape is bad, right?

[Michael Hardner]

lictor,

i'd follow the prevailing liberal orthodoxy and say that rape is bad UNLESS, its a black man raping a white woman... because really its only a case of taking affirmative action to the logical next level... for centuries white women were not encouraged to copulate with blacks and so its only really setting the bar even and fixing historical injustices....

besides, anyone who criticizes interracial rape is a filthy racist swine... and should be ashamed of himself.

or could a well meaning liberal be wrong?

You're really beneath this board when you post garbage like that, you know. People here wouldn't suggest such a thing without severe rebuke. You want to be treated as a gentleman but you act like a boor.

[Oleg Bach]

lictor,

You're really beneath this board when you post garbage like that, you know. People here wouldn't suggest such a thing without severe rebuke. You want to be treated as a gentleman but you act like a boor.

People whether they are playing poker on line or spewing political and social beliefs don't take computer communication seriously anymore - Like it's a big video game....Yes - the boors run rampant - This place - Maple Leaf Web has some class and grace - if you don't have a little of that then leave!

[Michael Hardner]

This place - Maple Leaf Web has some class and grace - if you don't have a little of that then leave!

Agreed.

[lictor616]

lictor,

You're really beneath this board when you post garbage like that, you know. People here wouldn't suggest such a thing without severe rebuke. You want to be treated as a gentleman but you act like a boor.

really? but many have no problem defending affirmative action and supporting president Obama because of the SAME logic.

[lictor616]

People whether they are playing poker on line or spewing political and social beliefs don't take computer communication seriously anymore - Like it's a big video game....Yes - the boors run rampant - This place - Maple Leaf Web has some class and grace - if you don't have a little of that then leave!

how many people have used profanity and ad hominem abusive... and I've never seen you say anything about it...

[Oleg Bach]

how many people have used profanity and ad hominem abusive... and I've never seen you say anything about it...

My friend you know I prefere to make statements..little quips and long winded rants. Rarely do I pay much attention to the technical posts..nor do I act as a watch dog.BUT if I get wind of an abuser - send them to me - I still enjoy the odd beheading to keep my skill up....as for profanity...it's usually some reactionary kid with nothing useful to say anyway ....so being older ...I simply don't react or care - BUT again....point out the jerks and let me at him...I don't go looking for touble..but if it's brought to me on a plate I will eat it...Also - I enjoy your tone as of late. You sound focused and a bit wiser. Keep up the good work.

[lictor616]

My friend you know I prefere to make statements..little quips and long winded rants. Rarely do I pay much attention to the technical posts..nor do I act as a watch dog.BUT if I get wind of an abuser - send them to me - I still enjoy the odd beheading to keep my skill up....as for profanity...it's usually some reactionary kid with nothing useful to say anyway ....so being older ...I simply don't react or care - BUT again....point out the jerks and let me at him...I don't go looking for touble..but if it's brought to me on a plate I will eat it...Also - I enjoy your tone as of late. You sound focused and a bit wiser. Keep up the good work.

this isn't intended as an insult or anything, but many of your posts seem invariably like its coming from neptune or saturns rings... all this talk of "technical posts" "beheadings", "bringin jerks on a plate"... and eating them

were are the pink unicorns while we're at it?

oleg if you have a grievance with something I say, out of fairness at least address it clearly and specifically, i'll be more then happy to apologize or defend what I say.

Edited October 24, 2009 by lictor616

[kimmy]

this isn't intended as an insult or anything, but many of your posts seem invariably like its coming from neptune or saturns rings... all this talk of "technical posts" "beheadings", "bringin jerks on a plate"... and eating them

were are the pink unicorns while we're at it?

oleg if you have a grievance with something I say, out of fairness at least address it clearly and specifically, i'll be more then happy to apologize or defend what I say.

Oleg is here primarily to serve as a living example of what a man can achieve once he realizes that education is worthless and that the school of life is where it's at. If you want to live the kind of epic life that Oleg does, forget college (and high-school for that matter) and basically just start impregnating any women you can find who'll have sex with you. That's what I've learned from Oleg. He's quite an inspiration.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg is here primarily to serve as a living example of what a man can achieve once he realizes that education is worthless and that the school of life is where it's at. If you want to live the kind of epic life that Oleg does, forget college (and high-school for that matter) and basically just start impregnating any women you can find who'll have sex with you. That's what I've learned from Oleg. He's quite an inspiration.

-k

You are making fun of me? My quest for knowledge started the day I was born..I was empathic to a degree and fuctioned on instinct - slowly I refined myself..but continued to be stubborn - like a tree that is chopped down and continues to sprout...as for the woman....well....I am not a sex toy - I have dumped woman that wanted to just use me for pure pleasure - Now that I am old - I have off spring - My eldest daughter just served poor dad up a nice meal - and a bit of smoke salmon as a little treat...she loves me - she is independent...all I can say is I stuck to the basics.........................Where as my first love the daughter of a conservative senator and buisness tycoon...well she dumped me for the material world ...Now she has passed away and her daughter is to be married ......BUT she is dead and will not witness the event....................................I MADE THE RIGHT CHOICES - TIME HAS PROVEN SO.

[Oleg Bach]

Point being...I am alive! All those that followed the earthly social and finacial playbook are either dead or dying...I held my ground as an earthling..This is my home - I own the place - and so do you!

[naomiglover]

Point being...I am alive! All those that followed the earthly social and finacial playbook are either dead or dying...I held my ground as an earthling..This is my home - I own the place - and so do you!

I have no problem sharing this planet with you.

[Guest American Woman]

i'd follow the prevailing liberal orthodoxy and say that rape is bad UNLESS, its a black man raping a white woman... because really its only a case of taking affirmative action to the logical next level...

I don't recall affirmative action ever allowing anyone the right to commit a crime.

for centuries white women were not encouraged to copulate with blacks and so its only really setting the bar even and fixing historical injustices....

"Fixing the historical injustices" would be 'accepting' interracial couples, not allowing men to rape women.

Sometimes your posts are so bizarre I have to wonder if you have a grip on reality.

[Argus]

They have the right not to work for the corporation.

Yeah but realistically, what do you do if all corporations have the same rules? I mean, has anyone ever actually read the legalize you're required to consent to every time you install some software on your computer? It basically absolves the company of anything and everything. Everyone ignores it and clicks the consent box and that's that. If you refuse, you don't get to use the software you've already purchased. So what's the answer? Refuse to ever click those boxes and never get to use any software?

You get a job you hope will work out, and all that legalize you signed when you joined up, well, you hope it's never brought into play. Mostly it isn't.

I work for a government agency. It has all sorts of rules and conditions you're required to consent to. For example, one of them is that you must sign off that you have read and undersood the employee code of ethics. Naturally, this code of ethics is written in legalize, and there's no explanation for the interpretations the agency places on its terms. You sign it, or you don't work. Likewise, if they change the code of ethics you must still agree, or quit.

Recently they inserted a little item in the code of ethics which basically says that if you look at any kind of picture or video on their computers which is not work-related, you're violating the code of ethics. Mind you, they specifically say elsewhere, in the electronic network usage guidelines, that employees are permitted limited use of their computers to send personal emais, and to do such things as reading on-line newspaper during breaks and at lunch. But of course, any employee who does so has violated the code of ethics!

It's basically in there so they always have an excuse to punish an employee if they so choose, because virtually ALL employees violate it routinely. Most don't even know the code was changed this year. I do, but what am I going to do, quit?

[Argus]

I agree, although it would give corporations that want government contracts incentive to change, and I think that would include Halliburton and KBR.

But it does seem as if there was a lot of "political grandstanding" going on since Jones had already won the right to her day in court.

Imho the government ought to simply declare that as a matter of law, no agreement can circumvent criminal law. If an employer or someone working for them have violated criminal law then nothing signed by the employee may have any force upon actions taken to remedy or punish the offending individual or organization in the courts.

[Guest American Woman]

Imho the government ought to simply declare that as a matter of law, no agreement can circumvent criminal law. If an employer or someone working for them have violated criminal law then nothing signed by the employee may have any force upon actions taken to remedy or punish the offending individual or organization in the courts.

I agree. Totally. That's why I don't see this law as some great victory for rape victims fighting corporations. It's also why I made the comment I did, which you addressed above: They have the right not to work for the corporation.

Sometimes when no one else will look out for your well-being, you have to do it yourself. Unions, ie: individuals, were the ones who brought about change in the workplace for the average worker. The government didn't do it for them. I think in this instance the government should, but in light that it hasn't, I see not signing the contract and not working for the corporation as the wise thing to do. From what I've read, she even had to specifically initial that clause.

I'm not excusing the corporation by any means, but Halliburton didn't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation, and I would think anyone going overseas to a volatile climate like Iraq, should do so with eyes wide open. But I think the reason some are willing to sign such a contract, and go to Iraq, is for the Big Bucks. That's why they are still willing to work for corporations like Halliburton when I'm sure many corporations don't have such a clause.

So all I'm saying is this: if the government won't look out for our welfare, we have to do it ourselves. If everyone refused to sign such a contract, the corporations would be forced to change them. But of course there will always be those who put the Big Bucks first and foremost .... and for that, I don't think we can blame just the corporations. It's all about the Almighty Dollar, on both sides, imho.

As a sidenote, I don't think we should lose sight of the reality that she did win the right to have her day in court, in spite of the contract she signed/present laws.

Edited October 24, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

I don't recall affirmative action ever allowing anyone the right to commit a crime.

well not affirmative action per say.... but I'll just say: O.J. Simpson

[Guest American Woman]

well not affirmative action per say.... but I'll just say: O.J. Simpson

Could you elaborate, please?

[lictor616]

Could you elaborate, please?

snip---

Racial differences:

"In closing arguments, Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson.[3] He questioned why, if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic violence calls without arresting him before eventually citing him for abuse in 1989, and why they then waited five days to arrest him for the 1994 murders.[3]

Cochran's jury summation compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler, a technique which was later criticized by Robert Shapiro and by at least one juror.[3] Cochran called Fuhrman "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare and the personification of evil."[3]

Fears grew that race riots would erupt all over Los Angeles, similar to the 1992 riots following the acquittal of four police officers for beating black motorist Rodney King. As a result, police officers were put on 12-hour shifts, and a line of over 100 police officers on horseback surrounded the L.A. county courthouse on the day of the verdict, in case of rioting by the predominantly African American crowd."

yup you can't administer justice for fear of causing discomfort to one or another sacrosanct minority group...

we can list so many other examples.... but you were already being willfully obtuse right?

[Guest American Woman]

yup you can't administer justice for fear of causing discomfort to one or another sacrosanct minority group...

First of all, what the defense lawyer says is of no consequence. He's doing his job. No more, no less.

As for "fear of causing discomfort," racial riots broke out because the police officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King, when there was video proof of what they'd done. I can see where some thought that "justice" wasn't served and I imagine if it were reversed, if black officers had beaten a white man on video, they wouldn't have been acquitted.

I do believe that racial tension was a factor in the Simpson verdict. But I think there's a reason for it; and I think the LAPD deserves some of the 'blame' for the verdict. So it's not just a case of 'protecting black feelings,' even though you see it that way.

we can list so many other examples.... but you were already being willfully obtuse right?

Oh, could we now? And of course we couldn't list examples in reverse, right?

As for being "willfully obtuse," the answer would be no. Since I'm responding to someone who presents rape as a "right" under affirmative action, I really did wonder what you were getting at, so rather than try to second guess, I asked for clarification. Seemed the logical thing to do under the circumstances.

[lictor616]

First of all, what the defense lawyer says is of no consequence. He's doing his job. No more, no less.

As for "fear of causing discomfort," racial riots broke out because the police officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King, when there was video proof of what they'd done. I can see where some thought that "justice" wasn't served and I imagine if it were reversed, if black officers had beaten a white man on video, they wouldn't have been acquitted.

I do believe that racial tension was a factor in the Simpson verdict. But I think there's a reason for it; and I think the LAPD deserves some of the 'blame' for the verdict. So it's not just a case of 'protecting black feelings,' even though you see it that way.

Oh, could we now? And of course we couldn't list examples in reverse, right?

As for being "willfully obtuse," the answer would be no. Since I'm responding to someone who presents rape as a "right" under affirmative action, I really did wonder what you were getting at, so rather than try to second guess, I asked for clarification. Seemed the logical thing to do under the circumstances.

you do know rodney king was actually guilty right?

Consider what happened. If, let us say, a Swede had led the police on a highly dangerous car chase at a 170 km/h, been stopped by a police roadblock, and beaten BECAUSE he was resisting arrest, the incident, if reported at all, would have been given three lines on a B page of some local newspaper. The man arrested would have been only a White man and no one would have cared.

The criminal in King's case, who had a wrap sheet that included pcp snorting, multiple counts of forcible rape, drunk driving, assault, gun charges... in this case the man who tried to escape belonged to the race which is recognized as superior because the White people are forced to subsidize it with affirmative action, preferential treatment, food stamps, superior deference and encourage its rabbit style breeding, as well as provide it with Lincolns, rims and other necessities of life.

oh that's right King was incidentally a rapist.... and he raped again upon his release...

again the bottom line is obvious to anyone who isn't dishonest: if you're black, you get preferential treatment in the justice system... but you will reject this out of hand and circumlocute your way around these obvious truisms.

[Guest American Woman]

you do know rodney king was actually guilty right?

You think that gives police the right to beat him? You think "police brutality" is ok if someone is guilty?

Consider what happened. If, let us say, a Swede had led the police on a highly dangerous car chase at a 170 km/h, been stopped by a police roadblock, and beaten BECAUSE he was resisting arrest, the incident, if reported at all, would have been given three lines on a B page of some local newspaper. The man arrested would have been only a White man and no one would have cared.

Consider if the Swede had been beaten by Black cops.

But I'm guessing, because of the video, the incident most definitely would have been reported even if everyone were white. I use as an example, the video of the RCMP tasering Robert Dziekansk. That got plenty of media attention.

The criminal in King's case, who had a wrap sheet that included pcp snorting, multiple counts of forcible rape, drunk driving, assault, gun charges... in this case the man who tried to escape belonged to the race which is recognized as superior because the White people are forced to subsidize it with affirmative action, preferential treatment, food stamps, superior deference and encourage its rabbit style breeding, as well as provide it with Lincolns, rims and other necessities of life.

The cops had no idea of his prior record when they beat him. But fyi, a prior record doesn't excuse police brutality either.

oh that's right King was incidentally a rapist.... and he raped again upon his release...

Again, that has nothing to do with police brutality being ok.

again the bottom line is obvious to anyone who isn't dishonest: if you're black, you get preferential treatment in the justice system... but you will reject this out of hand and circumlocute your way around these obvious truisms.

Yes, I've noticed how many Blacks on Death Row are getting "preferential treatment in the justice system."

But speaking of guilt, you do know that two of the police officers were actually guilty right?

These acquittals on state criminal charges, however, did not end the matter. Under federal law, the officers could also be prosecuted for violation of Rodney King's constitutional rights.

Two police officers, Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, were found guilty of the charges against them.

On August 4, 1993, these officers were sentenced to two and a half years in prison for the beating of Rodney King. link

[lictor616]

You think that gives police the right to beat him? You think "police brutality" is ok if someone is guilty?

Consider if the Swede had been beaten by Black cops.

But I'm guessing, because of the video, the incident most definitely would have been reported even if everyone were white. I use as an example, the video of the RCMP tasering Robert Dziekansk. That got plenty of media attention.

The cops had no idea of his prior record when they beat him. But fyi, a prior record doesn't excuse police brutality either.

Again, that has nothing to do with police brutality being ok.

Yes, I've noticed how many Blacks on Death Row are getting "preferential treatment in the justice system."

But speaking of guilt, you do know that two of the police officers were actually guilty right?

These acquittals on state criminal charges, however, did not end the matter. Under federal law, the officers could also be prosecuted for violation of Rodney King's constitutional rights.

Two police officers, Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, were found guilty of the charges against them.

On August 4, 1993, these officers were sentenced to two and a half years in prison for the beating of Rodney King. link

um... AW... hello?

resisting arrest makes you very susceptible to police brutality... another one of your typical "choose not to talk about" gloss overs

and its astounding to see that your comment shows absolutely no consideration for the fact that he was leading the police at breakneck speeds of 170kmh (and nearly killed 8 people on his way)... taht in itself is sufficient to warrant discharging your service pistol if you are a cop... because at that point he was endangering the safety of others (wantonly at that).

in hindsight the cops should have just shot him, and do us all a great big favor.

[Guest American Woman]

um... AW... hello?

resisting arrest makes you very susceptible to police brutality... another one of your typical "choose not to talk about" gloss overs

um.... lictor..... hello?

Evidently, since two of the officers were found guilty, the police officers had no right to beat him.

and its astounding to see that your comment shows absolutely no consideration for the fact that he was leading the police at breakneck speeds of 170kmh (and nearly killed 8 people on his way)... taht in itself is sufficient to warrant discharging your service pistol if you are a cop... because at that point he was endangering the safety of others (wantonly at that).

Again, since that doesn't give the police the right to beat him, it's irrelevant to the issue -- which was the beating.

in hindsight the cops should have just shot him, and do us all a great big favor.

Yes, because not even touching on your opinion of King, then the two cops would have been so much better off than they were with the 2 1/2 year prison term that they got for beating him.

Edited October 24, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

You think that gives police the right to beat him? You think "police brutality" is ok if someone is guilty?

Consider if the Swede had been beaten by Black cops.

But I'm guessing, because of the video, the incident most definitely would have been reported even if everyone were white. I use as an example, the video of the RCMP tasering Robert Dziekansk. That got plenty of media attention.

The cops had no idea of his prior record when they beat him. But fyi, a prior record doesn't excuse police brutality either.

Again, that has nothing to do with police brutality being ok.

Yes, I've noticed how many Blacks on Death Row are getting "preferential treatment in the justice system."

But speaking of guilt, you do know that two of the police officers were actually guilty right?

These acquittals on state criminal charges, however, did not end the matter. Under federal law, the officers could also be prosecuted for violation of Rodney King's constitutional rights.

Two police officers, Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, were found guilty of the charges against them.

On August 4, 1993, these officers were sentenced to two and a half years in prison for the beating of Rodney King. link

repeat, post deleted ignore

Edited October 24, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

um.... lictor..... hello?

Evidently, since two of the officers were found guilty, the police officers had no right to beat him.

Again, since that doesn't give the police the right to beat him, it's irrelevant to the issue -- which was the beating.

Yes, because not even touching on your opinion of King, then the two cops would have been so much better off than they were with the 2 1/2 year prison term that they got for beating him.

OH BUT THEY DID !!! silly!

the officers WERE FOUND GUILTY BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND POTENTIAL FOR A RACIST ACCUSATION OF THE LAPD and the occupational hazard of having race riots...

the LAPD preferred distancing themselves from any potential racist accusations rather then uphold the very rational decision of the police officers who incapacitated the 300+ pound King. So they sent their own officers to the wolves! Because that's the reality in multiracial societies, justice takes a backseat to minority appeasement.

that's the only reason!!

ghead and watch cops... you'll see many chases that end in 6 or 10 cops beating a fleeing criminal when caught...

putting other people in danger IS ABSOLUTELY ALL THE JUSTIFICATION NEEDED FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO FIRE ON YOU WITH NO FURTHER delay.

being black shouldn't excuse one from this... yet in this case it did... and predictably you agree with this state of affairs.

Edited October 24, 2009 by lictor616