Actually my first words, if such a video appeared, would be, "Wow, looks like Bennett is going to keep his seat."
Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
- Status
Actually my first words, if such a video appeared, would be, "Wow, looks like Bennett is going to keep his seat."
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what? you're making no sense.
i'm sorry, i thought this was a debate board... i had no idea how much other people's opinions bothered you...
no sane person would make the correlation between having an opinion and then jump to state murder....the opinion in this case has nothing to do with my opinion about state sanctioned murder.
care to try again?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
funny how you're all about rules when it comes to government...but you want to throw them out when it suits your POV....
but since you're willing to debate...
yes, that person would be a rapist if he knowlingly made that statement and knew the SOL was over and was flaunting it...that did not occur here...and if someone did that, they could still be prosecuted under CA law under the DNA exception
Well, I have come to the opposite conclusion.
As for the Salon Article, I posted it from there because i first read about it at daily kos but i didn't want to hear the whole, ohhhh the daily kos thing, so I found it on Salon. I also read about it in great detail at a feminist site I visit daily, but the person who wrote it writes a lot like me so it was very inflammatory and I knew it would start a shitstorm, but it did have more info in it. I do see now that there was not enough info in the Salon opinion piece, and I should have sought out the better referenced article in the Colorado newspaper earlier.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
damo....good luck on getting people to read the transcripts....i posted from the direct transcripts twice and both times it was roundly ignored
this is a witch hunt, most don't care about the law or any opinion other than their own...this is vigilante justice
this is a witch hunt, most don't care about the law or any opinion other than their own...this is vigilante justice
Finally, it's important to note that I think very highly of men. Now, if most men thought like I believe Buck clearly stated he thinks - that if a woman drinks around a man and/or invites him to her place or goes to his, she is consenting to sex - then I certainly would have been raped often. Luckily, most men know that in fact, that does not constitute consent. I feel that if you cannot be with a man and drink with him, and then be alone with him either at his place, yours, or in a hotel, without him assuming this means you said yes to whatever acts he decides to commit, then he isn't much of a man.
I believe, that it's clear that anyone, man or woman (and many, many women perpetuate this crap) who believes that a woman who enters a man's home, or invites him into hers, and has been drinking or whatever, has consented to sex, is saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men. That boys will be boys, because that's how they are, they can't control themselves. It's up to the woman to control them, and that means, don't tempt them.
That's a very low view of men. Men are not animals, they're human beings. Most of them are fully capable of conducting themselves as such. And men who do rape, know full well that they're rapists. THat's what they get off on. All of the distractions about, oh she wanted it, and she was drunk, and look what she was wearing - that's all bullshit. THey know they raped her. That's how they like it. They get off on rape. Not sex. And they count on apologists of both genders to keep them from going to jail, or even being charged, or even of having the woman they raped be strong enough to call it what it is.
I believe, that it's clear that anyone, man or woman (and many, many women perpetuate this crap) who believes that a woman who enters a man's home, or invites him into hers, and has been drinking or whatever, has consented to sex, is saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men. That boys will be boys, because that's how they are, they can't control themselves. It's up to the woman to control them, and that means, don't tempt them.
That's a very low view of men. Men are not animals, they're human beings. Most of them are fully capable of conducting themselves as such. And men who do rape, know full well that they're rapists. THat's what they get off on. All of the distractions about, oh she wanted it, and she was drunk, and look what she was wearing - that's all bullshit. THey know they raped her. That's how they like it. They get off on rape. Not sex. And they count on apologists of both genders to keep them from going to jail, or even being charged, or even of having the woman they raped be strong enough to call it what it is.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
more proof you're reading my posts as i'm the only one to call you on that...seriously....why are you so afraid to debate me, yet have no problem with the insults?
problem is darla....he never said that..no matter how many times you say it and want it to be true....he never once said that
that is sad if true...
i see...so you are now misconstruing the entire situation here to ONLY drinking and having drinks with men....no wonder you can't debate me....this case is much more than your scenario and you know it
strange... i don't know anyone who believes that and in fact have been in such a situation and i stopped. it was hard because i was fairly intoxicated and high...but i stopped. i don't believe alcohol or drugs are any excuse....if the woman says no, thats it, back the fuck off.
i'll ask again, have you ever talked to a rape victim who was raped by someone she didn't know.....you have totally discounted soc's statement that some do lie....when you know that is true. date rape is rape period. but don't discount the false accusations.
Yes, it's totally insane to find it a little bit fucked up that a person can be both be untroubled by the state murdering innocent people and apoplectic that anonymous message board posters called an admitted rapist a rapist. I'm totally fucked in the head. Obviously, I lack your keen sense of perspective.
"Afraid to debate me" - what a moron.
So, I guess there was a point to this thread after all, eh Yurt?
What people seem to be losing sight of here is the guy's ACTUAL COMMENTS. As I said in the beginning, they are very revelatory; you can spin them any way you want, but they say something about his character, the way he views women, and the kind of person he is.
The apologism on this thread, and attempts to switch the topic to vague theories about what he "might" have been thinking & the rest, is pretty pathetic. The only people ignoring transcripts here are the ones who think it's not incriminating for Buck...
So, I guess there was a point to this thread after all, eh Yurt?
What people seem to be losing sight of here is the guy's ACTUAL COMMENTS. As I said in the beginning, they are very revelatory; you can spin them any way you want, but they say something about his character, the way he views women, and the kind of person he is.
The apologism on this thread, and attempts to switch the topic to vague theories about what he "might" have been thinking & the rest, is pretty pathetic. The only people ignoring transcripts here are the ones who think it's not incriminating for Buck...
What rules am I throwing out? The rules against message board posters calling admitted rapists rapists? I didn't get that rulebook.
OK, so admitting to rape after the SOL has run allows people to call the admitted rapist a rapist but calling the admitted rapist a rapist before the SOL has run is not OK. That makes a lot of sense.
Even if he is never convicted, or even could be, if the guy says he raped somebody I'll call him a rapist. No longer "alleged"...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the rules you're throwing out are the very rules you're complaining i'm using for MY opinion on a messageboard....why don't you just admit they exist and that you have your opinion and that i have not formed an opinion yet
simple as that nigel...much easier than getting pissed off and saying what i have to say means shit....i mean really...do you really want to get into what means "shit" on a messageboard?
you're totally misconstruing my words....no surprise...when all else fails....make stuff up....i never said it was ok....but do continue this dishonest yurt attack that you and your buddies have been doing....
bravo
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and that is your opinion, not fact
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
now you're resorting to lies....
care to link to where i said was not troubled by the state murdering innocent people....
you won't .... because i never said that
you're just angry and incapable of rational thought right now....no idea why...though lately you have been irrational at night....hmmmmm
I disagree. Although I do know that an attorney will call it that even if he is caught with his stuff in the unwilling screaming, "Man! I am raping this thing!" while she is trying to beat him away with both hands and any weapon within reach.
When the guy flat says that he did it, since I am no attorney, I have no compunction not to just call him what he is, what he defines himself as. Just as I would call him an engineer if he told me he was one, and I call attorneys attorneys when they define themselves as such...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is why no one except darla takes you seriously onceler...
you totally ignored the man hating fest that darla spewed in her OP
no one is apologizing for anything....you and your ilk are the only ones trying to distract from the topic....and i've read the transcripts....they don't incriminate buck....and you can't point to anything than can....
typical of you to just state an opinion with nothing to back it up...still waiting for that link btw.....where you claimed the DA said this equaled consent
^ watch, no link will ever come ^
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
have you heard the recording? or just what others said the recording said....?
and again...since not one single person has answered this, perhaps you can....
what happened to the motion to compel prosecution that the attorney (in the transcripts) said he would bring?
I told you why that link will never come. Your "demands" for links based on your near-constant twisting of words never ceases to amaze.
As for who gets taken seriously, who cares? Do you think anyone is taking your idiocy seriously on this thread? Have you seen some the reactions to what you've posted?
The transcripts do incriminate Buck. Maybe not to you, because he's a Republican, but his words do reveal character.
Both she and the attorney said "if", nobody said they were going to bring such an action.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
fair enough on "if"....what was said was....there is no other option....and that up to "name redacted"....with a high burden of proof
she never said if, nor did the attorney...if you want to call their only other option with a high burden of proof and "if"...fair enough...
so....maybe you can answer: did anyone bring the motion and if so, what was the outcome....afterall, darla is making this about ONE man...and his political ambitions...what happened to the motion to compel? i would bring it, regardless of the high burden of proof....this case demands such a burden
- Status