Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So, just to sum up, the right-wing's very best defense for a guy who thought a woman saying "no" and passing out = "consent" is this:

"Clinton"

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.

right....you never said it equaled consent.....

good lord dude...your words are front and center

and soc agreed with me btw...don't see you calling out soc....yawner

 

[Onceler]

right....you never said it equaled consent.....

good lord dude...your words are front and center

and soc agreed with me btw...don't see you calling out soc....yawner

Wow...you actually got another poster to agree with you? I hadn't noticed.

Gosh darn you, Soc...you're wrong!

There ya go. Now, where are all of your "call outs"? Let's have 'em....

 

[Cancel7]

I swear Spurt must be doing cocktails of coke and chyrstal meth. He must have more posts on this thread than any two people put together, pure psychotic babbling. And then he wonders why I have him on IA. Hello, I have to make a living - I can't spend 24/7 answering every spurt he vomits onto the board. Few if any which make any sense.

 

[Cancel7]

Wow...you actually got another poster to agree with you? I hadn't noticed.

Gosh darn you, Soc...you're wrong!

There ya go. Now, where are all of your "call outs"? Let's have 'em....

You have way more patience than me. If I answered this guy I would be cursing him out every two minutes. He is an infected irritant.

 

[Onceler]

You have way more patience than me. If I answered this guy I would be cursing him out every two minutes. He is an infected irritant.

And here I thought you were just "afraid to debate" him.

It is kind of funny that he started out saying this thread was pointless (or, I should say, "implied" it, because he'll ask me to link up the exact words), and then proceeded to turn this mutha out....

 

[Socrtease]

To be clear Soc, since the suspect is on tape telling her he knew what he had done was rape, your throwing some red herring on this thread about women lying about rape, is really bullshit.

IT's true the tape was not admissable, but it proves she wasn't lying.

My personal take on the conversation between Buck and the victim is that he is making a personal judgement against her.

You can differ on that, but you cannot state that the woman might have been lying about the rape. BEcause the guy said, yeah, I know I raped you.

Now that might dry up some panties around here Soc - but you are only entitled to your own opinion, not to make up facts.

I am not saying that she might have lied. I am saying that when she got to trial the jury might have seen her as lying. The tape was NEVER going to be heard by the jury because the police fucked it up bad. She said she could not remember if she said "no" or not. She admitted that they were fuck buddies. She let him in to her residence. She was topless when he walked into the room. I KNOW none of these invite rape, nor amount to consent, but a jury, once a defense attorney got to them with all this would walk the defendant. Those facts are a defense attorney's wet dream. DA's are not supposed to prosecute people they KNOW they can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he didn't prosecute and there is NOTHING in his transcripts with her to show he thought she consented. You have overstated what can be proven from the evidence here.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am not saying that she might have lied. I am saying that when she got to trial the jury might have seen her as lying. The tape was NEVER going to be heard by the jury because the police fucked it up bad. She said she could not remember if she said "no" or not. She admitted that they were fuck buddies. She let him in to her residence. She was topless when he walked into the room. I KNOW none of these invite rape, nor amount to consent, but a jury, once a defense attorney got to them with all this would walk the defendant. Those facts are a defense attorney's wet dream. DA's are not supposed to prosecute people they KNOW they can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he didn't prosecute and there is NOTHING in his transcripts with her to show he thought she consented. You have overstated what can be proven from the evidence here.

Fuck that. If the prosecutors knows that a person committed rape, I don't think its too much to ask for that prosecutor to bring the charges and let the jury decide whether reasonable doubt exists. It isn't the prosecutor's job to decide reasonable doubt; it's his job to prosecute criminals to the best of his ability.

 

[Damocles]

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

I don't believe they brought the motion. Flat out they both say "if" they bring the motion there will be a high burden of proof, nobody said they were going to bring the motion.

It appears to me as if they waited until election season then tried to take comments out of context to make it appear as if he said something he didn't to try to hurt him politically instead.

 

[Damocles]

Fuck that. If the prosecutors knows that a person committed rape, I don't think its too much to ask for that prosecutor to bring the charges and let the jury decide whether reasonable doubt exists. It isn't the prosecutor's job to decide reasonable doubt; it's his job to prosecute criminals to the best of his ability.

However, what you feel here isn't the reality of the job. With limited resources bringing cases to make Nigel feel better, ones they know are very likely to be lost, would be exactly against what they are supposed to do as the DA. Their actual job is to assess and decide which cases should be brought to court, using exactly this kind of criteria.

It should be noted, even with all this, that the motion to compel trial was never filed. Apparently even her attorney knew that the burden of proof was not met.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, as Onceler points out, rape is measurably more severe than name-calling. And I’m sure you wouldn’t argue differently.

As for Brown’s staff member referring to Whitman as a whore, I read the whole thing, and this is what I think. He didn’t just come out of nowhere and say “oh that f’ing Whitman, what a whore”. He is saying they should go after her for being a whore because of pandering to a faction who apparently gave her money. I have no way of knowing that he doesn’t routinely refer to men in the same circumstances as whores. This is a fine distinction, but it’s an important one to me. I use the word whore in a non-gendered way. I call male politicians whores all of the time. I shouldn’t though.

Why shouldn’t I? Because it’s a gendered insult. We are all guilty of it. And no one more so than most of the males on this board who routinely refer to each other as ‘pussies”. A highly-gendered insult. I have made great strides in dropping the word bitch from my vocabulary, and referring to both men and women as “assholes”, a completely non-gendered insult. I slip up sometimes. But who else here is trying? Who else gives a shit?

So as long as you are engaging in gendered insults, you’re just as guilty as this guy who works for Brown. HE was obviously not using it in the manner of, oh she’s such a whore she screws this one and that one etc.

And no, I don’t think it’s any big deal. It’d be better if everyone tried to gender-neutralize their language, and since most people who accept money in exchange for sex (well, there’s not much of a call for it the other way around, lol), are women, then whore will remain a gendered-insult and one we should all avoid. But on the other hand, since our politicians are routinely up for sale to the highest bidder, it’s kind of hard to come up with a more succinct word for them isn’t it?

If there is an R woman who has been on the receiving end of sexism this election, sadly it’s been O’Donnell. I don’t know what she was thinking running that jackass ad “I’m not a witch”, but I cringed when I saw it, and I cringe every time a liberal-leaning pundit makes jokes about it. She is obviously a deeply stupid woman, but the witch thing is asinine, and some male liberals or dems sound sexist when going after her for it.

Of course rape is more severe... but BUCK didn't RAPE anyone.... his WORDING was poor and demonstrated a lack of compassion.

The aide to brown was being VICIOUS and deliberately using a derogatory word towards a woman. Brown sat there and did nothing.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't believe they brought the motion. Flat out they both say "if" they bring the motion there will be a high burden of proof, nobody said they were going to bring the motion.

It appears to me as if they waited until election season then tried to take comments out of context to make it appear as if he said something he didn't to try to hurt him politically instead.

No matter how many times you claim he was taken out of context, since the entire transcript has been released, that simply is not possible. But you may get a job as his press rep - if you need a reference from someone willing to state you are a big horseshit spreader, feel free to direct his office my way.

From what I have read Buck is trailing with women voters by double digits.

I'm sure you'd like everyone to believe that's because women are just too stupid to let you tell them what they're seeing and reading, and insist on coming to typical woman like hairbrained conclusions with their own tiny little minds.

 

[Damocles]

No matter how many times you claim he was taken out of context, since the entire transcript has been released, that simply is not possible. But you may get a job as his press rep - if you need a reference from someone willing to state you are a big horseshit spreader, feel free to direct his office my way.

From what I have read Buck is trailing with women voters by double digits.

I'm sure you'd like everyone to believe that's because women are just too stupid to let you tell them what they're seeing and reading, and insist on coming to typical woman like hairbrained conclusions with their own tiny little minds.

However, both you and Salon remove the context. You know that stuff I put back from the exact same transcript that actually gives reference from where he was speaking...

 

[Cancel7]

Of course rape is more severe... but BUCK didn't RAPE anyone.... his WORDING was poor and demonstrated a lack of compassion.

The aide to brown was being VICIOUS and deliberately using a derogatory word towards a woman. Brown sat there and did nothing.

I never said that Buck raped anyone. I do view victim-blamers with a high level of contempt.

I don't know that Brown's aide viciously and deliberately used a derogatory words towards a woman, since many people do use the word whore in describing politicians of both sexes.

If somebody called Nicky Haley a whore, then that's something I would view far more skeptically. But in this context, about Whitman? No.

 

[Cancel7]

However, both you and Salon remove the context. You know that stuff I put back from the exact same transcript that actually gives reference from where he was speaking...

Yet, you did not post the link or the entire transcript. I did.

And that's where your "context" red herring died.

You just haven't gotten around to burying it yet.

 

[Damocles]

I never said that Buck raped anyone. I do view victim-blamers with a high level of contempt.

I don't know that Brown's aide viciously and deliberately used a derogatory words towards a woman, since many people do use the word whore in describing politicians of both sexes.

If somebody called Nicky Haley a whore, then that's something I would view far more skeptically. But in this context, about Whitman? No.

I actually think Brown is wise not to try to defend it this way, even though from what I've read and heard, it was "political whore" that they were talking about. However, it would take away from his support to defend it as many people wouldn't seek context. Brown has repeatedly apologized for the incident (even though he could be heard agreeing on the tape). I think he took the correct tack for his campaign an attempt to explain could make it worse for him.

 

[Damocles]

Yet, you did not post the link or the entire transcript. I did.

And that's where your "context" red herring died.

You just haven't gotten around to burying it yet.

I did link the entire transcript. I actually took it from your post, then quoted from that same transcript as well as linking it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

calm down

Sorry Yurt... if you are going to act like an ignorant little spaz, then I am going to treat you as such.

1. i haven't heard the recording, but it sounds bad. also he apparently tried to apoligize earlier, before the recording. if this is all true, why doesn't he just admit it to the police? he is so sorry, but yet he never admits this to the police.

His saying sorry has nothing to do with it. He is not admitting it again because he would go to JAIL.

2. if he said it to her, it is likely he said it to someone else as well. they have never come forward

This is simply stupid supposition. 'oh, because he didn't go bragging to other people about raping someone, he must not have done it' WTF????

3. you still have not addressed why or if her attorney brought a motion to compel prosecution, nothing happened as a result of that. this is where i started to wonder about the case.

I did address it moron. THEY DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

....arrest the guy and its likely he would sing like a canary given his earlier repeated statements....something doesn't pass my smell test on this one

again... more ignorant supposition on your part. 'just arrest rapists and they will tell you everything'.... seriously? How can a person be as ignorant as you and still be alive?

I am going to have to have a chat with Darwin.

that is what made me think there is some reasonable doubt. and again, i don't know why i have to say this so many times for you guys, it doesn't look pretty, yet no one wants to actually discuss the issues, its much easier to assume and call people women haters...

LMAO.... THAT is what made you think there is reasonable doubt? The fact he didn't bring the case tells you that you moron. WE ARE discussing the issues. YOU can't seem to grasp the FACT that the MAN ADMITTED HE RAPED HER. There is NO ASSUMPTION. HE SAID.........


I DID IT

 

[Bonestorm]

However, what you feel here isn't the reality of the job. With limited resources bringing cases to make Nigel feel better, ones they know are very likely to be lost, would be exactly against what they are supposed to do as the DA. Their actual job is to assess and decide which cases should be brought to court, using exactly this kind of criteria.

My feelings have little to do with it. I'm all in favor of prosecutorial discretion. However, the exercise of that discretion is fair game for criticism. In my view, not prosecuting an admitted rapist because you are afraid that the defendant will succeed in blaming the victim is an improper exercise of that discretion and his reasoning is subject to criticism.

It should be noted, even with all this, that the motion to compel trial was never filed. Apparently even her attorney knew that the burden of proof was not met.

Two things:

(1) What's the legal standard on a motion to compel prosecution?

(2) An alternative explanation is that she didn't have the money to pursue it.

 

[Cancel7]

I am not saying that she might have lied. I am saying that when she got to trial the jury might have seen her as lying. The tape was NEVER going to be heard by the jury because the police fucked it up bad. She said she could not remember if she said "no" or not. She admitted that they were fuck buddies. She let him in to her residence. She was topless when he walked into the room. I KNOW none of these invite rape, nor amount to consent, but a jury, once a defense attorney got to them with all this would walk the defendant. Those facts are a defense attorney's wet dream. DA's are not supposed to prosecute people they KNOW they can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he didn't prosecute and there is NOTHING in his transcripts with her to show he thought she consented. You have overstated what can be proven from the evidence here.

If you are not saying she might have lied, your post about women lying about rape was gratuitous, to say the least. I was particularly bemused by the "and sometimes women lie about rape it happens". Of course we all know it happens. How do we know? Because whenever it does it's on the front pages of the damned newspaper.

There is a sexual assault every two minutes in the United States. Read that twice.

So of course, every rape could not be on the front pages, now could they? And in fact, cases of women lying about rape are infinitesimal compared to the sexual assault statistics, aren't they?

And we have the suspect on tape admitting he raped her.

So the point of bringing up that it has happened that women lie about rape was?

As far as there being nothing in the transcript to show he thought she consented, I would call that a highly-colored reading of the transcripts. That is to say, you brought your own preconceptions into it.

"It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex"

"I'm telling you that's what the circumstances suggest to people,including myself, who have looked at it. Although you never said the word yes, the appearance is of consent."

So I will continue to strongly disagree with your reading of that transcript.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

and that is your opinion, not fact

Let's walk through this slowly....

1) Woman says 'he raped me'

2) Man says 'yes, I raped her'

3) Yurt says 'that is not fact, it is just opinion'

Seriously? You have now dropped below Jarod in terms of ignorance.