Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Dux Redux: Nifong

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Dux Redux: Nifong
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Former Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Faces Trial

Modified from AARON BEARD

RALEIGH, N.C. AP 2007.06.12 - More than a year after shocking allegations emerged about Duke's lacrosse team, prosecutor Mike Nifong is heading to trial - as a defendant.

The NC State Bar charged the Durham County district attorney with several violations of the state's rules of professional conduct, all tied to his handling of the lacrosse case.

His trial is expected to run for five days, and as it started Tuesday, the hearing commission chairman promised a quick verdict. If convicted, Nifong could be disbarred.

Well before the start of the hearing, reporters and observers -- including the mothers of David Evans and Collin Finnerty, two of the once-charged and now-cleared lacrosse players -- packed the state Court of Appeals courtroom to watch. Finnerty and the 3rd player, Reade Seligmann, were expected to attend the trial at some point, as were their attorneys.

Nifong won indictments against the three last year after a woman hired to perform as a stripper for a lacrosse team party in March 2006 said she was raped there. He aggressively pursued the case, at one point calling the lacrosse team "a bunch of hooligans" in a newspaper interview.

That interview, along with several others made in the case's early days, formed the basis of the bar's initial complaint against Nifong, which said he made misleading and inflammatory comments to the media about the athletes.

The bar later added allegations that Nifong withheld evidence from defense attorneys and that he lied to both to the court and bar investigators.

Worried the pending ethics charges might result in an unfair trial, Nifong asked the North Carolina Attorney General's office to take over the lacrosse prosecution in January. By then, most experts and legal observers had long since concluded the case could not be won.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper agreed in April and dropped all charges against the three players. In a stunning rebuke, Cooper said there was no rape or attack, calling the indicted players "innocent" victims of a rogue prosecutor's "tragic rush to accuse."

Nifong arrived at court early Tuesday with his wife and teenage son, who took seats in the front row behind the defense table. Nifong is expected to testify.

His attorney, David Freedman, did not return calls seeking comment this week, but last week, he insisted his client had no plans to heed calls from his critics to resign.

"Public opinion is not going to weigh in on how the proceeding develops and will not weigh in on the ultimate decision by the bar," Freedman said. "Our purpose is not to sway public opinion but to present his case to the State Bar."

2007-06-12 05:27:57

Contrary to Freedman's policy, AoL's policy is to ask Americans on line if Nifong should resign.

With N - 15,200, 91% say he should resign, 5% (including me) said No, he should not resign, and 5% didn't know what he ought to do.

I would argue that, if he hasn't been found guilty of anything, he should not. If he is found guilty, he can be fired.

Apparently, the female who lodged the original charges will not be prosecuted because she has 'problems'.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
johnson
Member
Member # 2385

 - posted      Profile for johnson   Email johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I see it, Nifong did what he did to get reelected. Durham is a largely black city, and, given that, I think one can assume that his intention was to pander to the voters.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, prosecute him.

Perhaps grandstanding lawyers playing to the media might take a lesson.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given how out of line and prejudicial his statements were, I have no problem at all with him being disbarred.

I still want to know why the "victim" isn't being charged. Let her plead and prove insanity if it's a valid defense.

[ June 12, 2007, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't oppose that out of hand. She has her own problems so a bit of prosecutorial discretion might be in order.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
johnson
Member
Member # 2385

 - posted      Profile for johnson   Email johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to what I've read about the girl, she's a big mess of a human being. That doesn't mean that it's OK to do this sort of thing. She managed to ruin some lives and careers with her lies.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crystal Gail Magnum needs to be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent of the law to make an example of her. Because as of right now, the precedent is currently set that any woman can make a false claim against any man/men without the fear of any kind of consequences.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mess of a human being" isn't the same thing as being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.

I'm not advocating the death penalty or anything here, but she's guilty of making a false statement to a police officer and of interfering with an investigation at a minimum.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed, Daruma, et al.

I would hold that Nifong's audience, his own clientele, and his own constiuency expected just the responses that Nifong kneejerked. I think on a former thread, we quoted a feminist organization that was actually banging the drums for lynching the boys. Resonating with them were many a southern pulpit of the darker persuasion.

Anyone, man or woman, who brings a false charge of rape should suffer the equivalent punishments for that crime.

She attempted to destroy the boys; I don't give a tinker's damn what her 'motives' were. How can she learn not to do this but to be punished.

Did she not do it because she knew perfectly well that she could get away with it? What more-important social reason to prosecute her? It is not she who needs the lesson but, as we are learning from DNA tests, a great many like her.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*pulls out bar card and waves it around in a most unlawyer like fashion*

If it is true that, more likely than not, Nifong made misleading statements to the public, and/or withheld evidence from defendants, and/or lied to the court, and/or lied to the bar, his license to practice law should be revoked. When he grasped his bar card he made a commitment to not intentionally lead people away from fact, to seek justice, to be honest with the court, and to accept regulation by other lawyers. If any of the allegations is true, he should not be licensed.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Deamon:

Yes, sorry. I was talking about the military budget, and yes, it is the single biggest
line item. But, for the sake of argument,

The missions being undertaken by the Navy? Are we talking about parading the Missouri back and forth in the Gulf of Persia and firing threatening salvos? What are they, 16-inch? 18-inch? It wouldn’t matter to the masses if they were 144-inch guns! We have no more for need for aircraft carriers than we do for battleships. This entire war could have been waged from Israel, our only democratic ally in the Mideast, so necessary for our military advantage (NYT, early 2001 editorial). Ships today are
sitting ducks, and submarines are sinking ducks.

Hell, for the amount of money spent on weapons development, we should have been able to carry on the whole of "Desert Storm" from space. There was no need to go to Iraq at all.

... to do what the military does. Well, and there's the gyst of it: what is the
military expected to do? Hand out chocolates and win hearts and minds?[/B] I'm not saying that that is the military's singular fault; but what the Army said was that they were ready to effect those events if called upon to do so. They were called upon to do so by the Chief of Staff.

Panama was a farce [Mad] ! An oversensitive fag was driven out by American rock music. I'd say rock-n-roll won Panama.

What I remember about Korea was Pusan and the extremely dicey invasion at Inchon ... all of which led us to a stalemate and a division of the state. China became a political factor only after we invaded Chinese airspace crossing the Yalu. But, then, I was a child and probably don't remember things correctly. Notwithstanding, since we're still in Korea half a century later, I hardly call that a win -- nor can I blame the stalemate on the UN. It was [I]our
concern to hold China at bay by its nose, its toes, and its paps; our military was not prepared for a war with China and we knew it. Instead, we got half of
Korea, Taiwan by a shaky hand, lost Vietnam, screwed up Cambodia, and penetrated (but not inseminate) Laos.

As to Desert Storm, I would have no qualms if the Pentagon had not assured Bush II that 'Desert Calm' could not be accomplished ... albeit not all the brass agreed. OTOH, I don't think the protesting brass protested enough, hard enough, or were willing to break ranks on the issue. They were not timely.

I'm not saying that politics wasn't to blame, Deamon, nor even that the politicians
weren’t responsible to the public; but the military did promise more than it could deliver.
What I am saying is that the Army is having a lot of trouble saying NO to crackpot opportunities so that it can strut its stuff[I].

When an office staff has a manager who can't protect its people from unreasonable demands by owners, the manager should be sacked when the workers vote no confidence. We don't have anybody in the Pentagon who can say NO to the President.
Hell, any voter can say NO to the President. This inability is indicative of an inadequate command system, not to the implementation of a completely unnecessary oath. It’s like swearing people into public office -- as if a duly elected American citizen has to take an oath to assume office; it is as farcical and obsolete as annointings and coronations.

The military wanted no more troops to accomplish what the President 'wanted', just better equipment. When it got the equipment, suddenly, it wanted more troops. No one is suggesting that Bush II knows what he's doing, but I am questioning whether the Pentagon knows what it is doing.

As to democratizing the military, I think democracy could do a better at this point than
running it on the papal system -- because to my mind it couldn't be doing a worse job than misleading the American public. It reminds me of the Vietnam War when the military blamed American protests against the war for losing the war; it’s like blaming war protestors today for derailing our inevitable implementation of democracy in Iraq. Democracy cannot be imposed; it is not the nature of the beast.

As to accountability, which is what is raised by your defense of civilianization, I would remind you that materiel is almost entirely ivilianized -- and that it is “the private sector” which is the primary objective of our defense. It works better than government and, because it is subject to suit, is better held accountable than the government which can be sued only if it wants to be. Privately run prisons are working much better than government ones for the simple reason that, if they are not, they will nationalized again.
Public money out is money into the economy; who doesn’t know that better than the military which has always subcontracted almost everything since they closed the Springfield and Watertown Armories? Better yet, create an atmosphere of open, honest, and fair contract bidding (without requiring every sweeper and potwholloper to
have a security clearance), and keep the high steaks locked up. We don't need Haliburton's War and the Army's!

If the JFK is obsolete, which it is, don’t mothball it; sell it. We made it; we know how to
sink it.

The problem that I think the military is having (and you) is that we don't need pawns anymore. Brawn has little use today. We need brain, and that isn’t what the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, or even the Coast Guard is hiring -- or why else the emphasis on untrained, half-educated youth rather than experienced workers from the private sector and old folks who have little to lose by giving their lives for their country?

Not autonomized [Smile] , not automated [Smile] , but eliminating all personal contact entirely using
no personnel for combat whatsoever. Send robots in, use unmanned combat vehicles, fly drones in. Reduce personnel to the technocorps. The soldier and the sailor are as obsolete as the Polish cavalry and the Palace Guards. Eliminate the job descriptions by bringing the military into conjunction with the means by which war is to be fought. We waste more money conforming modern gadgets to yesterday’s boxes than we spend on
training. We don’t need men in tanks anymore. We don’t even need men in planes. Or Hummers. We need to take [I]all that money
and put it into technology.

One doesn't downsize casually, but the grunts have to go. They shine boots, they stand at attention, they waste their time and our money. Bootcamp has to go; if it's purpose is not obsolete, it is nonetheless an anachronism that no longer serves its original dubious purpose, and if an old fart can’t climb a rope in 10 seconds (and I can), don’t hire me; but for heavens sake, explain the need. And if you don’t put men in harm’s way, then you don’t need medics to go find him when he cries out in the night.

Compare our military intake to our immigration intake. What we want in immigration is
grunts. What we want in our military is not grunts.

The problem as I see it is that, given a military that is ever seeking to justify itself and its
self-indulgences, our government is obliged to find work for them do. There's a generational pattern of conflicts that so strongly suggests this that it needs somehow to be broken.

As to hierarchy, the whole system needs to be bombed and rebuilt on modern, sensible, lines. The titles need to go -- especially the title of admiral which, if I'm not mistaken, is of Arabic origin. It belongs in Mystique with the Boner Boys. Get rid of more than half the ‘grades’ that are used since these modules are hardly transferred and the transferability dubious. It creates a vast pyramidal hierarchy that serves mostly the accounting department.

Get rid of the pageantry, the parades, and the falderal. Get rid of the uniforms and the
lettuce and the acronyms. Get rid of the ships, most of the planes, get rid of the mothballs, and get rid of the tennis courts. Get rid of the war games at MIT and Stanford and the War College, air shows, the Marine Corps band and its bus, and
publicly burn those operations which serve the purpose of creating state-department policy! Open 90% of the top-secret crap; it only covered up mistakes (like the fancy machine that sank on launching at Quincy a generation ago). Find instead, an unemployed librarian who can write an ops manual. And hang the ass who derives his
operations code names from patriotic Broadway musicals.

Get rid of the reasons that stigmatize peace and prosperty. Our military has the bizarre notion that, because it defends the nation, it is the most-important thing about the nation. It’s like doctors knowing that people will pay anything not to go to heaven, and can charging whatever they want. Believe me, this air of indispensability belongs not to the military but to the American people, not just to the taxpayer but to our students who could solve most of the military’s problems if the military were open about its
shortcomings. Instead, it has to parade an air of invincibility which, frankly, it hasn’t lived
up since WWII. That’s more than half a century ago. I know, and I’m amazed to find that I’ve lived through it all.

Instead, and I know this from MIT, we leave it to a military which doesn’t know what it wants, to ask for things that it doesn’t know it needs. Get that out of the hands of the military and into the hands of our universities -- preferably the private ones. Take weapons development and testing out of the purview of the military and leave it to the scientists working with a technocorps that will know how to deploy it as the military requires it to fulfill its civilian directives. Instead, we allow the military to issue contracts for tens of thousands of things that don’t work -- and then pays the duds to try again!

As to your directive to spend more time investigating it and less time talking about it,
see my forthcoming article in The Gay Military Times which suggests that not talking about it is just why it can't be looked into!

I posit that the analogy is much like the military's likeness to the Church. It's structure specifically is designed to prevent people from looking into it. It is opaque. That's why it needs to be dismantled and rebuilt for the 21st century.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no question. This man abused authority and very nearly incarcerated innocent civilians for a crime they did not commit. I don't know many worse crimes.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard...right thread? This seems more off point then most of your postings. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nifong is gone. Long Live the Prosecuter.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dey said:
quote:
Instead, and I know this from MIT, we leave it to a military which doesn’t know what it wants, to ask for things that it doesn’t know it needs. Get that out of the hands of the military and into the hands of our universities -- preferably the private ones. Take weapons development and testing out of the purview of the military and leave it to the scientists working with a technocorps that will know how to deploy it as the military requires it to fulfill its civilian directives. Instead, we allow the military to issue contracts for tens of thousands of things that don’t work -- and then pays the duds to try again!
I'm not sure what thread you were trying to post this to, but I'm going to reply anyway.

How the heck do the non-military know what the military needs to complete it's mission? Don't get me wrong - the military has some serious issues with regards to technology (which I'll not speak on), but it does, for the most part, understand the job far better than most civilians.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FD said: Nifong is gone. Long Live the Prosecuter. [Big Grin]

NB: Yes, wrong thread, but I DO try to argue tangentially [Embarrassed] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, FDR, Ordanance Officers in the civil war resisted both the Spencer and Gatling Gun.

In Vietnam, they resisted the M-16, and then issued it without proper training or cleaning kits in what some think was an effort to discredit it, and it wasn't Stoner who recommended the ball to stick powder switch that caused so many catastrophic jamming incidents.

Prior to WWII, even the M-1 Garand met strong resistance which delayed production, and if it hadn't the situtation at Battan might have worked out a little differently. Our bright boys in procurement turned down the Allison tank suspension as "too complicated" so Allison sold the design to the Soviets...who used it to create the T-32.

Of course, MacNamara and his wiz kids forced the M-16 down the throats of services who didn't want it, instead of sensibly using a phased introduction. It takes civilians with some sense and a Military willing to work with them.

Giant derailment participation on my part, of course. Sorry about that.

Losing his license to practice seem about right. Sure wish they would charge that woman, though.

[ June 17, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the Pentagon, FDR, is like the shopper who won't stop till she drops. Do you think that RFPs derive from the genius of the Pentagon?

Pentagonians are like kids going to techno-fairs. So they get ideas there? No, they get vendored.

When they go with 'regular' vendors, like Boeing or Lockheed or IBM, they get burnt over and over and over again. It was Nixon, of all people, who recommended to that they started shopping for new ideas by going to technology and industry fairs. What a racket! A few days at the best hotels, touristing, and shopping for new boy toys!

It's like 'medical legislation' in Massachusetts. Who used to write it? William Augustus Waldron Esq, general counsel of The Massachusetts General Hospital. We only got universal insurance when some grad students did a study to analyze its feasibility. It never occurred to the politicans -- and certainly didn't occur to the insurance or medical industries.

Cripes! how did we get homosexuals out of the military? It came as a recommendation from St Elizabeth Hospital in Washington.

Where did RADAR come from? or the aeroplane? or the atom bomb? Was it the admirals and generals saying, oh, we need a big bang, we need to fly through the air, or we need to navigate like whales? No, almost all military inventions come ultimately from civilians.

The group never invented anything; every human idea springs from the head of a single individual. The hierarchy of the military (that which I think needs to be dismantled) actually suppresses innovation -- just the way the Church did.

The Pentagonians are not creative people, they're not even problem-solving people. They are a behemoth supposedly sorting out the crazy ideas of inventors who spend 99% of their time like society matrons concerned with their hierarchy.

Does the Pentagon cry out to the people for help? No, civilians follow the scent of money. MIT, Stanford, Chicago Tech, whomever, are not just vendors; they are the creators (well, their grad students), innovators (their students generally), and the problem-solvers (organizing the solutions), and they have their own caterers for developing their vendorships.

But does the Pentagon come up with a list of 'needs' all by themselves? Not since MacArthur -- and look at the trouble he got himself into!

Our brass spend most of their time attending conventions, strolling around, and talking to gageteers promoting their prototypes and ideas. then they call in the vendors, then ask for design changes (right to the 11th hour of production), attending tests, and parceling out the lettuce to those on the cutting-edge of military technology.

Our problem is that we don't need an army or a navy anymore. We need a technocorps, an air-and-space 'agency', and a Coast Guard with a real aircorps.

To exaggerate, but not much, I'd say that there isn't a thing we do abroad, except perhaps to guard embassies and consulates, that couldn't be subcontracted.

Hell, we have more private police inside the nation than we have public police. Remind us of Ro..hm's 3-4 million-man army inside Hitler's Reich III? Sure! But it was not Ro..hm who was the bad guy. It was Hitler.

I see nothing wrong with a civilized military. It's called militias. Every man, and now every woman, ought to belong to a militia. Just the money spent a VFW or Legion bars in Massachusetts would pay for a substantial militia.

I support the idea of a military society. What I don't support is the idea that the military is a remote pyramidal monolith, somehow independent from the nation it was created to create -- and remain subordinate to.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re Nifong again,

If he has been disbarred, can Nifong still represent himself in the inevitable civil suits that will be brought against him?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if Nifong were black?
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was kind of surprised at how much Nifong admitted to doing wrong. Was he phrasing his wrongdoings in particular ways to avoid civil lawsuits? Does he already have a job lined up that doesn't require him to be able to practice law? Does he have a big offshore account and doesn't need to work anymore?

He sure took that easy, having his livelihood taken away.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the radio this morning, they suggested we bring charges against the woman who falsely accused the Duke players. Here is her information, including her past arrests.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He sure took that easy, having his livelihood taken away"

He will probably run for congress. He will fit right in...

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being disbarred does not disqualify him from other office.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To even think that a white male would want to rape a African female is a joke.

Whites don't rape blacks.

This is why:
http://bitsblog.florack.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mangum_crystal.jpg

Why is the African female not being charged?

Just more proof that whites don't think blacks are responsible for there own behaviour.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
J.B., can you be any more offensive?

I probably shouldn't have asked that because you will probably go ahead and prove that you can.

Are you saying that white men don't rape? Remember rape isn't about sex, it's about power. If you were implying that white men don't desire to have sex with black women, then you should probably pull your head out of the sand and look around, it happens all the time.

I also note that you chose the term African, but that isn't correct. She is an American citizen. She did an awful thing accusing innocent people of rape, but she is still an American, not an African. Like my Cherokee neighbor says, if you were born in America you are a Native American. It doesn't matter where your ancestors were born.

Edited to add:

I see that you have already deleted and added a newer version of your post while I was typing this one up. Why not just edit it? You certainly didn't tone down the offensiveness any with this new version.

[ June 21, 2007, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
Are you saying that white men don't rape?

No, I clearly wrote:
Whites don't rape blacks.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:

Remember rape isn't about sex, it's about power. If you were implying that white men don't desire to have sex with black women, then you should probably pull your head out of the sand and look around, it happens all the time.

No, I clearly wrote:
Whites don't rape blacks.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:

I also note that you chose the term African, but that isn't correct. She is an American citizen. She did an awful thing accusing innocent people of rape, but she is still an American, not an African. Like my Cherokee neighbor says, if you were born in America you are a Native American.

The words Native and African are said before American.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
It doesn't matter where your ancestors were born.

Maybe to you.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hydroman_lmk
Member
Member # 4467

 - posted      Profile for hydroman_lmk   Email hydroman_lmk       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about the Head coach of the lacross team should he get his job back? Noone seems to mention him. Did he get a raw deal and should now be reenstated or did the investigation brought about by the case lead to another reason for him to be fired?
Posts: 64 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
johnson
Member
Member # 2385

 - posted      Profile for johnson   Email johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I heard something about the coach getting remunerated or reinstated. The coach did jack squat to deserve the firing, IIRC. I can see disciplining him, but the firing was some bullshyt, IMHO.

[ June 21, 2007, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: johnson ]

Posts: 626 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
Are you saying that white men don't rape?

No, I clearly wrote:
Whites don't rape blacks.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:

Remember rape isn't about sex, it's about power. If you were implying that white men don't desire to have sex with black women, then you should probably pull your head out of the sand and look around, it happens all the time.

No, I clearly wrote:
Whites don't rape blacks.

Actually J.B. you clearly wrote this:

quote:
To even think that a white male would want to rape a African female is a joke.

Whites don't rape blacks.

I will also point out that when I was writing up my response your entire post consisted of this line:

quote:
To even think that a white male would want to rape a African female is a joke.
which you rewote after the fact.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:

I also note that you chose the term African, but that isn't correct. She is an American citizen. She did an awful thing accusing innocent people of rape, but she is still an American, not an African. Like my Cherokee neighbor says, if you were born in America you are a Native American.

The words Native and African are said before American.
If you are being politically correct in your language use then yes, Native and African are often used as modifiers to American. However you neither used politically correct language nor did you even use the word American. Here is what you said:

quote:
Why is the African female not being charged?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
It doesn't matter where your ancestors were born.

Maybe to you.
Maybe to most people in the world, but then you don't care about anybody but yourself, so I am not going to bother to convince you of this fact.

Here is a bit from your rewrite of your first post that I will respond to now thayt I have read your rewrite:

quote:
Why is the African female not being charged?

Just more proof that whites don't think blacks are responsible for there own behaviour.

She is not being charged because the defendants and their families agreed with the prosecuter that she had enough problems and charging her wouldn't do any good. I personally disagree and would have pressed charges in their shoes, but that is the reason that I have heard over and over again as to why she was not charged. I don't see it as proof that whites don't think blacks are responsible for thier own behavior. It might serve as evidence that certain individuals have that belief, but it is a long way from there to your blanket statement.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember rape isn't about sex, it's about power.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I've always had a problem with this statement. If it was just about power, why not go the much easier path of beating the tar out of her. The mechanics involved in a rape seem rather difficult in comparison.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A woman getting beaten up by a man isn't the same degredation as a woman being raped by a man.

Heck, I don't think a man getting beaten up by a man would be the same sort of degredation as a man being raped by a man.

[ June 21, 2007, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hydroman_lmk
Member
Member # 4467

 - posted      Profile for hydroman_lmk   Email hydroman_lmk       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember rape isn't about sex, it's about power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

while I think Power is part of it maybe even a very large part of it it is not completely about power. A heterosexual male may rape another man in prison but that is not because he is gay it is because that is his only option. The same man would not rape a man on the outside if he had a chance to rape a white woman. If this man was like J.D. (in sexual bias I am not trying to imply that J.D. is a rapest) then he would rape white women if given the chance. Sense what is it 90% of all rapes are aquantince rapes(I for one do not know that may black women, There may be one in the community I live in and so If I were a rapest my most likely target would be a black. Of course I dont think that this is a good point for J.D to make for one reason. They highered her as a stripper for their party. If they didnt like her they would have sent her away(they did eventually but not before she stripped for them so I am pretty sure they liked her at list a little). So obviously they were sexually attracted to her and if they were sexually attracted to her and thought they could get away with raping her I see it as a very likely situation. This is probably why Nifong thought it was a slam dunk at first. He probably made the decision that we all made(come on when it first came out we all thought they were guilty(and no matter how much time passes we will wonder if they somehow got away with it( I really feel for them because everyone they know will have that grain of doubt about them until the end of their lives( that is why what she did was so horrible they were charged with rapeing her physically but they raped their lives(I think what happened to them was worse than being physically raped))))

string her up by her striping g-string she deserves it.

Posts: 64 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hydroman_lmk
Member
Member # 4467

 - posted      Profile for hydroman_lmk   Email hydroman_lmk       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so If I were a rapest my most likely target would be a black

sorry typo I ment white

Posts: 64 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1