magekillr

Uh, that's because using public property to promote your religion is a violation of the first amendment. So, actually, they're defending the first amendment. Do you think public schools should allow teachers to lead children in prayer? If not, why not? It's the same principle. Sorry that you don't like that, but that's what defending freedom is all about, no matter how unpopular the position is. The ACLU is one of the last organizations standing between a lot of government tyranny and discrimination, and I'll be damned to see them smeared like that. If you want to post your nativity scenes in front of a public school, that's illegal; go put it on your church's lawn two miles down the road. Urban Legend: ACLU and their "War on Christmas" Is it OK to say "Merry Christmas"? Endless examples of the ACLU defending religious freedom

Yeah, I'm done here. Clearly this is somewhere where we're never going to agree, you'll complain about reverse racism, affirmative action, oppression of white/straight/males, etc etc. Anyway, some quick reading of Wikipedia might be in order: A lot of what you're saying comes straight from Pat Buchanan's hand book, echoed by Ross Douthat last July: ~Link. To which someone like Adam Serwer notes the real issue: Link. Call it hypocritical, but I frankly don't care. Spare me the feelings of the straight white males like Pat Buchanan who are being oppressed by the organizations like the NAACP, this straight, white male isn't feeling so oppressed. Read or watch some Tim Wise and you'd realize what you're saying is pretty ridiculous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

More examples of this being widespread: The ACLU doing what they do best: fighting discrimination.

70% of the few who actually voted, and that makes it fair to generalize and claim that bigotry/intolerance is a common American activity? With our history as a country, and the outright demagoguing of The Other that's gone on since the beginning of the founding, sure? It's not just a common American activity, it is present in ALL cultures all around the world. How do you think Hitler was able to rouse up seemingly honest, decent people to commit such atrocities? He brought up a demon and rallied a country that was hurt from war and economic turmoil. It's the human condition, man. It's not specific to America. What is specific to America, though, is a mosque being constructed inside of a community center in NY City and politicians using people's fears and irrationality of The Other to rally against it. The next time Switzerland passes a bigoted law, and they will, I will attack them. I think your problem is that everything is black and white for you, and you see what I'm saying as an attack on you; whether it's with this or the patriarchy that dominates our society, as you so nicely mentioned. You see me saying these things, identify as an American, and then think I'm talking about you. Stop projecting yourself and acting like a victim. I'm an American, too. You know what else is true about American society and culture? Our embrace of ignorance, our hatred of academia, and our uneducated public who doesn't even believe in evolution. Now I'm sure you'd read that and go, "You're lumping Americans together and calling us ignorant rednecks, aren't you?" No, I wouldn't be, but to say that America is an enlightened society would be a farce. You're falling into the same trap as those 70% of Americans: seeing this as an Us vs. Them without any nuance or seeking the need for context. Another thing that would describe our society is obese. No, I didn't call all Americans fat, but to say that we don't have a problem with obesity would be a lie. So, is that better, do you understand now? I hope you do, because I won't be going into back and forths over this supposed point you raised. Actually, I would be. Whites haven't had a history of oppression in this country, mate. There's a reason why black colleges exist, and it was because of white people's policies and continued prejudice in the acceptance process (same with black churches). Maybe this is why you have such a problem with what I've said; you don't have a clear understanding of context or our history. So I guess I was right about the whole troll thing after all. This is a false dichotomy in your assumptions that if not a then it must be b.

You're either the most boring troll ever (trolling politics???) or you are really that blind to the double standards you constantly create. You always go after a certain type of group, while simultaneously arguing about how bad it is to do that. In this post, it's America. In the rest, it's usually either men or conservatives. I really want to know why it's okay for you to talk so much [cabbage] about these groups, but if any other group under the sun is mentioned in a mildly negative context, you spew out the words "bigot", "intolerant", "____ist", etc. I'm trying to figure out what your point is, Zierro. I'm not creating any double standards whatsoever, nor am I grouping people altogether; 70% oppose this mosque in this country, how much higher do you need that number to go before it's ok to say "Americans?" It's a fact that intolerance has its history in America, and I gave specific examples to explain that. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, it was the Irish. For a while it was the Catholics--especially after JFK was elected president. In the 1980's it was the gays; for a while it was the Mexicans (and it still is largely the case); now it's Muslims. This isn't to say that Americans are alone in this, as even though I just ridiculed our banter about France, their policy is still bigoted (although so is the veil, but banning it is a horrible way at addressing it). Switzerland's recent policies are probably the worst. The United States is in no way unique in this: ~The Paranoid Style in American Politics Even though that essay was about America, it doesn't mean we're alone. However, this particular topic is specific to America, so I will speak of Americans. For we are, as all humans are, basically intolerant. And our politics reflects this. The struggle against intolerance is difficult and unending. But it does not start with the politicians. It ends with them.

Not necessarily. I don't believe Howard Dean to be a racist even though he's stated his opposition; when pressed for further clarification from Glenn Greenwald, though, he wasn't making any sense. To see those interviews, watch below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdyV59378tU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqArhrLH4Cs However, Howard Dean is a pol, and they do what they do. I'd say that opposition to the mosque is most definitely rooted in those things, even if someone isn't necessarily a racist. Which is why all around the country, not just this supposed hallowed ground, mosques are meeting strict opposition.

I wonder what people have to say about this, as this is the real issue: Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition Lol, and Americans had the conceit to yell at France for their veil ban when France's Muslim population is: a.) Substantially larger b.) Less moderate c.) Less educated d.) Poorer If America opened up its immigration policy, then we'd really see bigotry and racism far worse than what it currently is. "Ground Zero" is a scapegoat for the true nature of this beast that's always been alive in America; being racist, intolerant and bigoted is as American as American Pie. From the Original Sin of slavery to the periodic bouts of nativism, xenophobia, bigotry and overt hatred ("No Irish Allowed," Jim Crow, AZ SB 1070),the American attitude towards the Other has been largely intolerant. It always amuses me when people look to pols to lead us to tolerance. Pols reflect America. And when pols see tolerance as in their electoral interests, then they are for tolerance. And vice versa. (Harry Reid wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship in 1993 and now of course he ridicules anyone who suggests it. This is purely a political calculation.) We get the government and policies that largely reflect who we are.

And this is where the downfall of the GOP is imminent. It might not happen in 2010; it might not happen in 2012; but it will happen if they keep it up. Non-whites should not be considered automatic Democrats. Muslims and Latinos come from religious traditions that align nicely with many of the socially conservative values that Republicans espouse. Indians and Koreans are famous for their entrepreneurial initiative, and share all the concerns that white small business owners have about governmental red-tape. But none of these groups can consider themselves welcome in Red America. And, since most Republicans can't tell Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs apart, almost no one of color can avoid the sensation that Republicans are "going after" them. This creates a self-fulfilling problem for the Republicans. Their racism is driving away some of the immigrants that might vote with them on economic issues, which accelerates the blueing of America, which makes some forms of socialism more likely to take root here in the United States. To go over this once more for clarity, the Republicans fear that people of color don't share their values on both religious and economic issues, so they are panicking at the browning of America. But many people of color actually do share many of their values on both cultural and economic matters, and they're being to driven to vote against the Republicans anyway. The more non-whites are inclined to vote with the Democrats, the more non-white immigration can be seen as a kind of Democratic voter-drive. And the more that conservatives see immigration as a straight-up threat to their political prospects, the more they alienate new immigrants with their toxic rhetoric.

Americans certainly did make bad decisions, and that started with the election of Ronald Reagan and his era of deregulation. I don't mistake the poor choices made by some Democrats, such as Bill Clinton and his band of Rubinites and their Third Way economic Wall Street coddling with the repeal of Glass-Steagall (although had it been in place there still would have been a crisis, as it would not have prevented Bear Stearns or Lehman from collapsing), but do not try and get away from accepting the blame with a faux-attempt at sounding reasonable by passing the blame along. Moreover, it has been the Republicans actively preventing the government from working properly in order to root for economic failure. Why would they do this? Well, because they're [wagon], but more to the point it's because most elections hinge on the economy. If it's doing good, the president has good approval; if it's bad, the president has bad approval. They know this, and they know that by preventing more stimulus from flowing--just as most economists are calling for, including some libertarian ones--that unemployment will remain high. About the fascism, I was referring to Pamela Geller who started this non-story. I told you, it's not political rhetoric. It is LITERALLY what she is: Source (hint, it's little green footballs, the same blog founded by Charles Johnson (who is a conservative, btw). There's other examples of this, too, when she said that there is a genocide of white South Africans going on. See, the right's attempt to find an equivalent to their extremists on the left is always hallow because there simply isn't one. Sorry, sparky. When one side promotes peace and the other promotes genocide, being moderate isn't a virtue. That's the problem that I have with "moderates". They think that being moderate automatically means that they're juuuust right. I'm partisan, but I'm a partisan liberal, not partisan for a party. The Democrats are full of the worst example of what you described as being "moderate" by calling themselves the Blue Dogs. They're nothing but wannabe Republicans and corporate shills. As a matter of fact, 80-90% of the Democrats who will lose this fall are Blue Dogs, and I'm not going to cry when they do; I might even celebrate. At least then I know we can stop negotiating within the party and might force the GOP along rather than pretending they're good-faith negotiators. Unlike the tea party, I don't mind negotiating a bill because that's what politics is. If you made me dictator I would of course enforce what I want full-stop, but that's not how things work. So if I can't have single-payer health care, arguably the best way to give health care to the citizens of a country in both cost and care, then I will accept something weaker such as a very weak public option. I didn't even get that, or anything close to that, though. What I was forced to accept was a health care bill that looks exactly like the Republican plan of 1994 written by the Heritage Foundation. And now THAT, a bill written by the freaking Heritage Foundation, is called a far-leftist plot and is disowned by...the Heritage Foundation. Why? Because they're hacks, that's why. I don't agree with the DFH on every issue; in fact they're horribly wrong on some economic issues and I know this because I am educated in the field (their ignorance of the Federal Reserve particularly sticks out in my mind). However, if I ever don't know anything about an issue, it's safe to assume that the DFH are right and others are wrong. They have been consistently right about nearly everything in this country since the Progressive Era starting with Teddy Roosevelt. Sorry if you think that means they're conceited, but typically you grow an ego after 100 years of being right on 75-80% of the issues. I didn't label you as the same, did I? I specifically called out Pamela, and you took that to mean a label on yourself and your tribe. I think that's a little telling, don't you think? Moreover, sorry, but I can respect my differences with conservatives, but I cannot respect anyone who is a Republican in the present era. Not one. Here's Bruce Bartlett, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, telling the story: Source. It's kind of hard to lend a hand when your Constitution demands a balanced budget ;). This is why it's the job of the federal government to intervene. I mean, if stupid conservatives hadn't demanded that we have balanced budget amendments, this wouldn't be a problem. However, I guess Obama should have just allowed GM to fall just as the Republicans demanded rather than be a socialist commie and rescue it; I'm sure your unemployment would be much better. Ah, so nice to hear credit where credit is due. I'm sorry that you like to place the blame on people who buy better made cars that are environmentally friendly without breaking down after the first 10,000 miles, rather than the corporations who seek to fulfill a need (as in the "rednecks" who buy the big cars and trucks). They just respond to the market. The people of America like bigger, so that's what happened. They have demand, they fulfill it with supply. If Americans were like the hippies, the corporations would seek to fulfill that demand and only make smaller, more environmentally friendly cars. And now you've found out where I disagree with the left on economic issues. Protectionism is stupid and hurts everyone. Ah, the beauty of a free market. This is nationalistic jingoism, and I don't particularly care about Americans more than other people. This is what happens in the globalization process, and it's why people like Michael Moore are opposed to globalization. American jobs, American ingenuity, American exceptionalism. This will be more balanced when China and India have their own progressive revolution, so to speak. It was the unions who fought back for workplace safety, weekends, sane hours, and a decent wage; so when they have that realization and end the child and slave labor for [cabbage] wages, it will even out. It's just the way of the world. This I can agree with. Pols are pols and they do what they do.

Bzzzt, wrong, they don't. Why not take another example of the NRA holding their convention in Denver, Colorado right after Columbine? And I do mean right after; Columbine occurred April 20th, 1999 and this meeting happened April 29th, 1999. That happened, and there was people throwing a [cabbage]-fit. Guess what? They were wrong, too, as Heston will tell you: However, unlike the mosque, it wasn't masked in xenophobia and racism. Calling this a mosque is like calling a casino in Las Vegas a cathedral because it has a wedding chapel. What about the mosque that's already closer? Should they leave? It was there before the WTC was even built.

I dislike the idea of "supporting" the building of it in the first place. I mean, what does that even mean? Do I think they should move? No. Do I think they should build it? Well, being as I don't really like religion at all, my opinion would be no lol. However, I would like it if less religious things were erected altogether, not just this. So really it's a stupid question. "Do you support them building it or don't you?" Frankly, I don't care. It's their property, they've made their choice, so that means that I do support their building it; and I'm not going to be terrorized with stupid right-wing ploys, lies, and racial/religious bigotry. This is just so [bleep]ing stupid, and it pisses me off that it reaches the national scene because of some far-right fascist named Pam who is paged regularly by Murdoch and Roger Ailes for their next controversy and ginned up "scare white people" story. That wasn't political rhetoric, either; the woman who ginned this story up is literally a fascist who speaks at neo-Nazi rallies. Hey, guys, unemployment is like 9.5% and it's the Republicans' fault; hey, guys, Pakistan is underwater, why isn't there as large of a response as there was to Haiti (which probably still hasn't gotten even 10% of the promised donations); hey, guys, Moscow is burning and people are literally being evacuated due to the smog. All of these issues, and we're talking about a god damned mosque in NY City. It's nothing but bigotry towards the other. They call Obama a Muslim -- and are quite suddenly lashing out at "his people" almost a decade after 9/11--- simply because they aren't allowed to call him what they want to call him. Sure, they don't think Muslims are American. They also don't think liberals are American, blacks are American, Mexicans are American, gays are American, atheists are American or anyone else who doesn't identify themselves explicitly with them are American. They are, you see, Real America. Everyone else is not. If the right wing plays its cards right, the Democratic congress will end up passing a resolution declaring Obama a Muslim and outlawing mosques within a hundred miles of a military base, after which the Republicans will take to the airwaves protesting that the government wasted taxpayers money while desperate Americans are denied unemployment insurance.

Found this today: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=08&year=2010&base_name=more_extremism_from_the_civil I also found this today from my friend Alicia, and I can't help but applaud, especially on the last part ("don't drop the soap LOL!"):

DFH. As far as the internet goes, some might call me a grammar Nazi, although I wouldn't say that personally.

Zierro, weren't you the one who said on a death penalty thread that you didn't care what the studies showed, you couldn't believe that the evidence wouldn't support your position that the dp is a deterrent? This is more or less why I've avoided this thread since. If you aren't going to accept the evidence, what's the point?

Look at how wrong you are. Statistics has shown time and time again that the whole "arrhhh revenge and retribution" philosophy for criminals simply does not work as a deterrent, at all. In fact, and as an example, in the U.S (a country that eats the whole "an eye for an eye" [cabbage] up) over 2/3 of the criminals end up getting re-arrested within 3 years of release, and half get charged with a new crime. In contrast, Norway, which has one of the (if not the) highest prison standard in the world, where they truly focus on prison education and rehabilitating their criminals, hardly anybody gets re-arrested (I'm too tired to look up actual statistics right now, but it's unbelievably low). That's not the only problem with the U.S. prison system though, where both racism, torture and prison rape is pretty much guaranteed. It's one of the things about the country that makes me sick to my stomach. Preach, Azvareth. Not only all of that, but the U.S. has the highest amount of citizens in prison, dwarfing Russia and China, even when we ignore per capita statistics. Thanks, drug war! So this is not only working, but we're creating worse criminals by throwing them in prison. Mandatory minimums, racism, poverty and our drug war are the causes of these disparities. Stephen Colbert smacked Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner around on Friday, I think, with this doosy: How does a State Department official not know how wrong this is? Maybe it was national posturing and he knew the real stats, but denying it doesn't make it any less true.

It depends on the crime. I'd say that 90% of crime--I have no evidence for this statement, it's just some ballpark that I'm using--is fueled and motivated by the feeling that there's no other choice if they're to survive. So in other words, ignorance, the lack of an education and poverty fuel crime. Rapists and sexual harassers it's about power and control. Sociopaths are a different breed of criminal, though, and I don't know much about the psychology of them. I find those crime TV murder stories about people like John Wayne Gacy to be interesting, though.

I don't take supplements, although I do use protein powder in my meals. I don't count that as a supplement because, well, it's my food lol. Also, too many antioxidants can be detrimental to your health. My mother kept trying to get me to take different vitamin pills, and I kept telling her that too much of a certain vitamin can do damage. I get enough nutrition from my current diet, so I don't need to include any filler. I'm a vegetarian, so some people who are vegetarians might need to take iron supplements. The only thing I'm sometimes short on is potassium, but I'll just add a second banana if that happens during that particular day. I'm on a 3,500 calorie per day diet, so my daily values are based on that (except protein, where I aim for 150-180 grams per day). Someone on the sport and fitness forum asked for my meals, so I'll post them here: Here's a standard day, and there are different changes that can be made if you need more variety. This is just an example of what one might expect: Meal 1: Two egg white omelette with spinach and cheese, two slices of Arnold's Health Nut Bread, a glass or orange juice. I don't put anything on the bread, as I use it to make an egg sandwich. I'd stay away from butter, and stick with olive oil if you must put something on it. Meal 2: Bowl of Total or Shredded Wheat cereal with skim milk Meal 3: 4 cups of mixed vegetables with a glass of water mixed with protein powder Meal 4: 3 servings of pasta (spaghetti, macaroni, fettuccine, etc) GYM Meal 5: Protein shake: protein powder, 2 cups of milk, 1 cup of oatmeal, 1 frozen banana, 1serving of peanut butter (Smucker's natural, get rid of the hydrogenated crap), 1 serving of brewer's yeast Meal 6: 3 servings of black beans, 3 servings of brown rice, 3 servings of garbonzo beans Lots of water throughout the day. Eat once every 1.5-2 hours. Your protein powder should have little fat and sugar content, by the way; like 1-2 grams of fat per serving is acceptable. Stay away from artificial and natural sweeteners.

Of course it's relevant. This is a symptom of the nonsense cancer that is the American mainstream media.

Jesus Christ, man. Just when I thought the criticisms of these people didn't go overboard as it is. 1.) Leave Obama's family alone. They're not using government funds to do this, so who cares? Are you going to go down the list of every single politician and demand they not go on "lavish" vacations? If not, why not, as it speaks volumes of hypocrisy and unnecessary criticism. 2.) Criticizing stupid [cabbage] like this is why our media sucks. "Look at John Edwards' expensive haircut! What about John McCain's shoes? Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi eat at In and Out Burger instead of a ritzy hotel?" Ridiculous. Asking about whether or not a politician understands the common man is one thing; [bleep]ing about how they spend their money when money is relative is something else. How do you know the difference? Not by how much money McCain spends on his shoes, but when someone like Sharron Angle calls people on unemployment "spoiled." 3.) Leave Obama's family alone, focus on him, and make criticisms that actually matter! My god, every other day the Republicans make the stupidest criticism that has no bearing in reality and it's usually a lie. Then when someone like me comes up with an actual criticism that has merit--like Obama declaring he has the authority to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without any due process--it gets ignored by [cabbage] like this. My god, no wonder I can never have a conversation with a conservative in this country anymore. They're in the loony bin with criticisms that are flat out lies, or they flat out don't matter. What would matter? If Obama himself spent one third of his presidency on vacation like Dubya did. That has merit. This does not. Some crap about Laura Bush on a lavish vacation would be equally ridiculous, or even if George took a lavish vacation, for that matter.

I don't really want to get in an argument over the rest so I'm just gonna say about the time frame thing. I would agree that we won't be leaving for while, but from what I've seen this administration likes to force things, which could be good or bad but so far it has only seemed bad. So I think it's possible that we will be out just because they will force it. The administration likes to do anything BUT force things; it likes to find agreement, and form coalitions; it likes to distance itself from making waves, from taking on people who disagree with them. They cave at the slightest bit of pressure from the "centrists." I'm not saying I disagree with their caving, as political reality is what it is; you can't take on the Ben Nelsons of the world without pushing them out of the party as you have no pressure on them. It is what it is, and they do not force anything, they cave. If anyone forces their hand to get out, it will be Maliki. Seeing as he is a US pawn, I doubt that will happen. The only thing that will force them to do anything is Congress reasserting their power to declare and fund war by voting against the emergency war funding efforts that we can always afford to pay for whilst the GOP and corporatist Democrats complain about the debt and deficit. And seeing as the GOP votes lock-step, especially when it comes to "the troops," I don't see that happening, either (Ron Paul aside, mind you).

Without having read any of the other posts to save myself from certain heartache, as I'm sure there are people claiming that it's too soon to withdraw--the same people who thought our adventures in the Middle East would be splendid and successful, no doubt--Obama is just putting window dressing on this and playing with semantics. We're not getting out of Iraq, or the Middle East for that matter, for what will be years to come. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Now, this is coming from someone who would support nation building in Afghanistan, assuming the correct strategy was put in place, but I know that will not happen; going into Iraq was the stupidest thing any American president could have done, but going in whilst we were in Afghanistan was even more stupid. America is weary of our involvement in these wars, and after 8 years of absolutely no strategy in Afghanistan from Bush--and that's not political talk, literally, there was no strategy, as Robert Gates will tell you--there's no way we can have the political muscle or the money to pull something like that off. It should happen, we promised them back in the 1980's under Reagan, and it didn't happen. So we'll just have to wait until something else happens, terrorist related, and then I'm sure America will just love to go frolicking back to Afghanistan to help their people; although, given our track record, I wish we wouldn't. Afghanistan will never be stable until Pakistan and India resolve their differences with Kashmir, as Pakistan purposefully wants it unstable to use as a proxy in their wars with India (and the papers from Wikileaks will explain that in detail, even though people educated in the region already knew this). Or convince them that the Taliban is more of a threat than India (LOL! yeah right). Get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, remove Pakistan's aid, remove Egypt's aid, remove Israel's aid; gtfo the Middle East 100%. Also, cut the Pentagon's budget in half, please :)

Not to mention that Male/Male rape is never reported hardly same goes for Females raping males (it can happen) and female/female rape. In the case of a Male raping a female, if it's reported, theres going to be some policework involved and it really does depend on he said / she said and i've seen it work both ways in the USA. Male rape can and does happen, and it's hardly ever reported, yes indeed. In fact, I see a sickening view amongst many men who say "Man, if I were being raped by a woman, I'd welcome it!" <-- That's the view a lot of men have about woman on man rape. Example: http://thecurvature.com/2009/03/20/when-a-man-is-the-victim-a-second-study-in-rape-apology/ Say what you want about it being the othercase, women have the upper hand on men in most discrimination, harassment and rape situations. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Like, her word is more believable over the man's? That's coming down to a he said/she said without any evidence at hand. I'm just not sure what you're saying exactly without any concrete examples. Almost all cases where it's a "regret rape" like this one are thrown out because it's clearly not rape. If you're talking about those "Men's Rights" organizations, 9 times out of 10 they're nothing more than misogynist front groups. Take the Ben Roethlisberger case. He didn't get convicted of anything, a mere slap on the wrist if you ask me. And yet, people at ESPN thought it was "too severe" or "just right." The man should have been disgraced from the entire organization, not some puny little suspension. You mentioned sports, so I was reminded of this. People came flaring to his defense, calling the woman a gold digger and such. This was without a doubt sexual assault, and it was taken rather lightly. It sure doesn't look like that. Sorry? My original post said "Racist Zionism...what else needs to be said?" How can that be taken as, "The state of Israel must pay for this callous decision!!!" It was a decision made by a judge who would not have made the same decision if things were turned around. The judicial system in America is piss poor when it comes to race as well, as minorities get the bad end of the stick (especially with the death penalty); in fact, that's my third most important political issue here in the states (first being health care and the second being climate change). Holy crap did you seriously just bring the biggest joke of a new-station into a rape argument for some sort of justification of Zionism? For the sake of comparison, yes. I won't try expounding if you didn't understand the comparison in the first place, though. I am unaware of any law in the West that treats racial or religious deception as the equivalent of rape that requires incarceration. I am unaware of any prosecution of Israeli Jews for rape posing as Arabs in order to get laid (if someone has such evidence, please let me know). The same thing could have happened in any other country of a supposed liberal democracy, but that list is quite absent and dwindling--dwindling down to zero. I posited a situation that was somewhat close to this that DID receive a conviction, and it was indeed rape (for more reasons than one). Any other examples have been thrown away, thrown out, and some countries even have penalties. I said that lol, although I don't know how it has nothing to do with Zionism or racism: This judge shares that view with the current Likud government. I don't believe that this is official state policy (otherwise you'd never have any convictions of Jews who commit crimes against Arabs), but it is official government mentality. Using one case as a measuring stick for fairness defies every concept of mathematical statistics and is unrealistic at best. Thats a piss poor sample size to judge fairness. :roll: I agree completely, which is why I would appeal the case if I were this guy. I don't see how the conviction stands as is with another judge.

And as much as you want to say that "all it takes is DNA evidence," the fact remains that rape is the most underreported crime in the world, probably even in developed countries, and even when it does get reported, conviction rates are quite low. http://jezebel.com/5011675/the-rape-conviction-rate-in-britain-is-pathetically-low And yes, rape does have varying definitions. Afghanistan has made it legal for husbands to rape their wives; they don't see it as rape if the two are married. That doesn't make it any less than legalized rape, though. Anecdotes never serve as evidence, but one example that I have is one of my friends was raped by her boyfriend and his friend. They tried getting her consent, she said no. Later when she was drunk, they drugged her and then raped her. She said that the police more or less discouraged her from even reporting it, as they didn't think anything would come of it. Say what you will about "all it takes is this!" and "women change their minds all the time," but it's very underreported, convictions are low, and some women don't even have the knowledge that what happened to them was rape in the first place with this "boys will be boys" mentality plaguing our patriarchal society. As to the Israel thing, I wasn't saying that this is Israel's fault; this is just a stupid judge and I would hope that with an appeal, another judge would rule differently. However, the Zionist mentality that is seen throughout the society and embraced by the government is at fault, just as was the mentality throughout most of America until the 1950's when it was reversed. It's kind of like blaming Fox News over that recent shooting involving the Tides Foundation. No one is directly at fault other than this man: However, where do you think he got these ideas in his head? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5fd57p__fA

I remember most of that, plus the Runescape news. I started playing this game when there was only one server, but a second server was added that week, I think. The third server would never work, so rather than fixing it they added a fourth server whilst the third was still broken lol; they had to do this, because with just two servers, it would always say that there were too many people playing, what was the limit? 2000 I think? or 2500. One of the two. And banking, oh god. You could only store gold, and you could only trade 65,000 gold at a time for a long while. As far as the old tip.it boards? I never ventured anywhere other than the Market Place. Most of my posts were from there, that is until they stopped counting them in post count. I came to Off-Topic when I retired for the first time, which was in like 2003 or 2004, and now that's where all of my posts come from, seeing as I quit 100% after they removed the dueling arena.

Not always, statutory rape may be consensual as far as both parties are concerned, but the law says that a 14 year old cannot give "consent" in the same way that a 16 year old can so the sex is still classed as rape. Rape by deception cases have been brought before courts before but they're almost always thrown out. Taken to the extreme, every time you tell a girl you love her to sleep with her would become rape. I was mostly ignoring statutory rape. Speaking of which, there needs to be a national age of consent here in America, or something. It's 16 in some states, 18 in others. Rape by deception I don't really consider rape except in some cases, like with the case that I mentioned. No, it's not a tic. The reason that this judge agreed with her is because he is a racist. Had an Arab brought this case before the judge, I guarantee that there would nothing to see, and he would have rightfully thrown it out; if I were this man I would appeal the case. This really has nothing to do with Israel other than the mentality that some Israelis share with the government: Jewish heritage is supreme and must stay that way.