Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Hey look! A bunch of old white males perpetuating old white male rape/sexual harassment culture!
That's a surprise.
That's a surprise.
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Hey, look! An East Coast lawyer putting his own special spin on actual reality in order to make it fit his own particular 'p.c.' agenda-driven view of 'same.
Surprise, surprise...
Last edited:
Pretty soon athletes will come out for unsolicited butt pats. 
It is slightly amusing watching liberals hatchet each other while trying to strive for the self-righteous perceived moral high ground (witness the statement above). Sad that a talent like John Lassiter (who is the genius behind Pixar) has to take a sabbatical because his propensity to hug people (publicly, not in his hotel accompanied by a grope) made a few emotionally fragile pansies “uncomfortable”
The liberal media is taking a beating with sexual indiscretion. Too bad I liked Matt Lauer.
Me, too, Al. I suspect being at the top of the ladder presents an opportunity to feel empowered...but not in this “socio-political” correctness we seem to be emphasizing these days. He was no better or worse than Wienstein, sadly.
Cheers? Not too sure now...:shocked:
Doug
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't what's happening "being found guilty without a trial or beyond reasonable doubt proof"?
Sorry Doug, you're out of a job for so called crude remarks to that busty blond. Adifuckinous, no more paychecks. I'm not saying they are wrong, but you're whole life is in the shitter on hearsay?
Sorry Doug, you're out of a job for so called crude remarks to that busty blond. Adifuckinous, no more paychecks. I'm not saying they are wrong, but you're whole life is in the shitter on hearsay?
I would venture to say there are men all over America tonight with very tight pucker strings?
That's precisely why it seems to me if the alleged OFFENDER's name can be dragged thru the mud for weeks and months on end (especially given the fact the accused COULD be found innocent in the end), his ACCUSER should be named as well.
I know all the supposed reasons/excuses why the accuser's name is kept confidential, but they don't persuade me. Why? In the event the accused is found 110% INNOCENT - how does he then get his good name/reputation back...specially given the fact his innocence will likely only be reported in a single paragraph "below the fold" on page #6 in newspapers and mentioned only BRIEFLY on T.V. newscasts...but, people will ALWAYS remember - and tie the accused's name to - the months of 'lead stories' that preceded the final verdict?
I would venture to say there are men all over America (and elsewhere 'round the world) tonight with very tight pucker strings?
The Mrs. and I were discussing that very thing last night. For those who SHOULD be sweating over it - I have no sympathy. I feel sorry for the guys who have no CLUE what's about to fall on them and no reason to expect it would.
There are any number of FALSE rape and/or 'sexual abuse'/'physical/mental abuse' accusations on record that illustrate/prove my point in that regard. (As I recall, there's one woman in the U.K. who's serving 10 years right now for making false rape accusations.)
Just a quick comment here, Larry...courts do not have an “innocent” option when deliberating for a verdict...but they do find defendants “Not Guilty” on a regular basis.
I know...it seems like just a semantic difference...but there must be a reason the courts do not declare defendants “innocent”.
FYI, though...I do believe that a false accusation of “rape” should be a criminal offense.
Cheers!
Doug
Last edited:
Ummmm.... maybe that’s because the person on trial is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?
presumption of innocence | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Yes, Randy...but when the trial ends and the prosecution fails to prove them to be guilty, the verdict is never “innocent”, it is always “not guilty”.
This would be a good time for Jeff Y. to join in this discussion. As much legal experience as he has, he may be able to explain the “disconnect”.
Cheers!
Doug
This would be a good time for Jeff Y. to join in this discussion. As much legal experience as he has, he may be able to explain the “disconnect”.
Cheers!
Doug
You're nitpicking, Doug.
You know DARNED WELL exactly what I was getting at. Parsing and nuancing the PRECISE meaning of this-or-that word used in whatever context is just so much useless self-aggrandizing for the sake of same when the word's meaning is/was clearly understood WITHOUT the scholarly treatise.
You know DARNED WELL exactly what I was getting at. Parsing and nuancing the PRECISE meaning of this-or-that word used in whatever context is just so much useless self-aggrandizing for the sake of same when the word's meaning is/was clearly understood WITHOUT the scholarly treatise.
To quote one of our Presidents who left office with a budget surplus and the U.S. at peace with the world: “It depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Just my innate interest in accuracy at work, Larry...nothing personal intended.
Cheers!!
Doug
Just my innate interest in accuracy at work, Larry...nothing personal intended.
Cheers!!
Doug
No. It was pointless, self-aggrandizing nitpicking for the sake thereof.
G'night.
If you are "not guilty"of a crime, you are innocent of the crime.
Clinton left office with a $268 billion "budget surplus" meaning only that he did not spend $268 billion that was budgeted for because of the 1995 Congessional balance buget act. It was a figure on paper, nothing else.
Geez...imagine that! A liberal Democrat who didn't spend all of his budget. That sounds surprisingly "Conservative" to me!
I'm not familiar with that '95 congressional action, Al...help me out here. Did the act remove that $268B from Clinton's budget, or did he just not spend it? Sorry to seem so confused, but if it happened in 1995 it's long enough ago that I'm certainly not remembering it (memory is not my long suit!).
Cheers!
Doug
- Status
