Gangrape of girl, 15, dozens watched and did nothing

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You know what would quickly clear this up?
Public hangings! All those that partook shall be hung by the neck until dead, and hung Persian style....rope around the neck and slowly raised up none of this snap the neck business.
All those that watched but did not do anything to save shall be treated as adults and sent off to federal prison.

Rape is a crime agents humanity and should be treated as such.

Capital punishment is not statistically a deterent. Deterrence theroy is a giuse for the furtherance of killing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The conclusion is obvious: Liberals and Democrats, who are already on record as supporting the eating of live kittens, also support gang rape and doing nothing to defend helpless crime victims.

Hey, you can say a lot of things about the Democrats but it's the Republicans who support gang rape.

Or at least refuse to punish it if it might get in the way of money. They seem to have a, "money before people" policy.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

S.AMDT.2588
Amends: H.R.3326
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (submitted 10/1/2009) (proposed 10/1/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S10069-10070

STATUS:

10/1/2009:
Amendment SA 2588 proposed by Senator Franken. (consideration: CR S10027-10028; text: CR S10027)
10/6/2009:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S10143, S10146-10148, S10149-10150)
10/6/2009:
Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 30. Record Vote Number: 308.

COSPONSORS(9):

Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 10/1/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 10/6/2009
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 10/6/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 10/6/2009
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 10/6/2009
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 10/6/2009
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 10/6/2009
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 10/6/2009
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 10/6/2009

Also see;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111xC5Mrz::

There was most likely something in there that spoiled the entire bill.

The proposed 2010 military budget also has amendments about hate crime legislation, now why do they try and spoil a budget with that crap?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the former VP candidate: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/

Palin's town charged women for rape exams

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The conclusion is obvious: Liberals and Democrats, who are already on record as supporting the eating of live kittens, also support gang rape and doing nothing to defend helpless crime victims.

Hey, you can say a lot of things about the Democrats but it's the Republicans who support gang rape.

By that logic, Dems support infanticide.

I love following you for comedic relief

INFANT: means a child from birth to 12 months of age.

Next thing you'll tell me they support cat juggling.

However, http://www.bcbs.com/news/national/democrats-push-republicans-to-buck-bush-on-child-health-bill.html

.....Democrats Push Republicans to Buck Bush on Child Health Bill

With a vote scheduled for Thursday, Democrats and their allies are hitting the airwaves, staging rallies and making a blizzard of phone calls as they try to pressure Republican House members to override President Bush's veto of a bill expanding a popular health insurance program for children.


Mike, sometimes you should just decide to read these threads and not comment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the former VP candidate: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/

Palin's town charged women for rape exams

Wrong.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

With all the money their fellow gang-bangers make selling dope, they should all be back on the street by the time that article hit the streets.


Chuck

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the former VP candidate: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/

Palin's town charged women for rape exams

Wrong.

Well I congratulate you on your newfound ability to cite a source, but the NRO is simply another version of Hannity. Again, if I posted Moveon.org, you would shit a trail of ^*^$^( that would go on for years, but you think you can post NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Onion or whatever and have it fly.

Nice try, back to the drawing board, Mikey.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well I congratulate you on your newfound ability to cite a source,

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Quote

but the NRO is simply another version of Hannity.

Still better than CNN - or your "proofs" from...what was it? Angelfire? Geocities?

Quote

Again, if I posted Moveon.org, you would shit a trail of ^*^$^( that would go on for years, but you think you can post NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Onion or whatever and have it fly.

Show where I've posted Limbaugh or Hannity - put up or shut up, Lucky.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative. So I'll just take your word for it? Hardly, how difficult is to go to the place where you got your numbers and cite them? YOU DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT!!!!! Furthermre, you should do that w/o prompting when you post data. Obvioulsy you've never been to any schooling beyond high school or you would the importance of a bibliography of a sort. People, like you, only fail to cite data because people like me will rip it apart if it's dishonest, vague, irrelevant, etc. Don't feel bad, it really isn;t you as much as it's the fact that any good data doesn't exist.

Again, I shouldn't have to pry this data out of you and you have yet to provide your source for the GDP you posted, but we know it's nominal and not read GDP. Just like with the data relating to me posting the top 20% assets, you posted top 20% incomes; not sure if you're trying to be coy or you just don't know the diffs.

Quote

Still better than CNN - or your "proofs" from...what was it? Angelfire? Geocities?

I suppose USA Today is part of the liberal conspiracy too?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence

And FActcheck.org too:

[/url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/mccain-palin-and-rape-kits/[url]

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the pervasive rumor that Sarah Palin, when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, made women pay for their own forensic testing when reporting a rape. The verdict: This policy was enforced for at least some reported rapes in Wasilla, and in 2000, complaints about rape kit charges in Wasilla and other rural areas drove then-Gov. Tony Knowles to pass legislation requiring police departments to pay for the testing.

Yea, Mikey, everyone is out to get you guys.

Show where I've posted Limbaugh or Hannity - put up or shut up, Lucky. ***

If you're able to read and interpret, see if you can decipher this again:

LUCKY: Again, if I posted Moveon.org, you would shit a trail of ^*^$^( that would go on for years, but you think you can post NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Onion or whatever and have it fly.

See the, "or whatever?" That means anything like them. You posted NRO, basically a like version of Hannity and you think it can fly. It's hard communicating with binary thinkers, you have to be literal with everything or you lose them.

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

[robskydiv 0]

Quote

First of all, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel of decency on this one.

And in response to your thinly veiled insult about the Democratic Party, i'd say most of the scumbags will probably not vote at all, but those that do will most likely vote Democratic. Why? Is it because Democrats support gang rape, crime, drugs, and inner city decay? No, it is because people who live with gang rape, crime, drugs, and inner city decay all around them think that Democrats are more likely to solve those problems (or even care about them) than Republicans. So in these likely voters' minds, it is the Republicans who are soft of gang rape, crime, drugs, and inner city decay,

But that's not what you meant, is it?

+1

[warpedskydiver 0]

I could give a shit about what you and others like you think.

Your opposition just tells me I am right.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I could give a shit about what you and others like you think.

Your opposition just tells me I am right.

Well I'm glad you care since you could give a shit.

The last 2 elections tell me I'm right.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative.

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

Quote

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

I have in some refs to GDP, it is considered typical by economists; nominal is too raw. Of course if you understood the least about economics you would know that. Again, just as with the wealth of teh top 20%, you posted income and wanted it to fly. You just look for loopholes in data that aren;t there, fail to post a citation and hope no one knows. Perhaps go a car club where the average age and intellect are 15ish and you might win that one.

Quote

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

It's an opinion from a Dem-basher site. Since you won't post a site in this thread, I will.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

I don't have to peek at that for long before I realize it's a biased site. Seriously, if you can't source something objective, just don't comment. Again, you wouldn't entertain anything from Moveon, don't try to feed me that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

I have in some refs to GDP, it is considered typical by economists; nominal is too raw. Of course if you understood the least about economics you would know that. Again, just as with the wealth of teh top 20%, you posted income and wanted it to fly. You just look for loopholes in data that aren;t there, fail to post a citation and hope no one knows. Perhaps go a car club where the average age and intellect are 15ish and you might win that one.

Nice... can't refute the claim, so you attack the messenger. Typical.

Maybe you can have billvon or quade go edit your OP in that thread so you don't have to keep scrambling to cover your ass.

Quote

Quote

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

It's an opinion from a Dem-basher site. Since you won't post a site in this thread, I will.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Um...yeah, ok - I guess that link in my prior post that you went to wasn't actually a link.

Quote

Seriously, if you can't source something objective, just don't comment.

I find myself surprisingly give-a-shitless about your standards of 'objectivity'.

Quote

Again, you wouldn't entertain anything from Moveon, don't try to feed me that.

I don't post stuff from Beck, Limbaugh, Moveon, Alternet or other places and try to pass it off as news....unlike some here.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Nice... can't refute the claim, so you attack the messenger. Typical.

How did I attack you, saying you don't know economics if you use nominal data whne any serious economist uses REAL GDP? Furthermore, your failure to post any source except some RW rag is ridiculous.

Quote

Maybe you can have billvon or quade go edit your OP in that thread so you don't have to keep scrambling to cover your ass.

Everyone I've read on this site or anywhere uses REAL GDP except you, as you want to be obscure and use different data to be dishonest. I have nothjing to hide, I post REAL GDP and I post a citation almost all teh time and if anyone ever asks for a citation I IMMEDIATELY post one. You, OTOH, it's like pulling teeth and then you try to flip it. BTW, where is that GDP source you had?

Quote

Um...yeah, ok - I guess that link in my prior post that you went to wasn't actually a link.

It's a link from teh cite to show its lack of objecctivity, the home page and that's how I refered to it.

Quote

I find myself surprisingly give-a-shitless about your standards of 'objectivity'.

Now taht we can agree upon, you wan to pit your biased rags against leftist biased rags and call it a constructive argument. If my side was a POS I would prefer that misdirection too, but as it stands, data is on my side so I post reputable data/sites.

Quote

I don't post stuff from Beck, Limbaugh, Moveon, Alternet or other places and try to pass it off as news....unlike some here.

Who are you saying does that? You posted this in another thread http://www.nationalreview.com/ and referenced it in this thread. You do post garbage agenda sites.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Everyone I've read on this site or anywhere uses REAL GDP except you,

Want me to post your OP in that thread here, or do you want to read it for yourself?

Quote

as you want to be obscure and use different data to be dishonest.

Don't put your projections onto me - thanks.

Quote

I have nothjing to hide, I post REAL GDP

Except in your other thread - you had to edit the follow-on post to stipulate real GDP after I'd already posted a couple replies.

Quote

BTW, where is that GDP source you had?

The same place you got YOUR numbers from. If you're still unable to parse that sentence, I recommend taking a remedial English class.

Quote

If my side was a POS I would prefer that misdirection too, but as it stands, data is on my side so I post reputable data/sites.

Like geocities? Or was it angelfire? I don't recall.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Want me to post your OP in that thread here, or do you want to read it for yourself?

Sure, I'd just like you to make a point and post your citations.

Quote

Don't put your projections onto me - thanks.

You have a history of not pocting citations, then when you get called out on it, playing silly games of 'look it up yourself.'

Quote

Except in your other thread - you had to edit the follow-on post to stipulate real GDP after I'd already posted a couple replies.

I didn't change my data, as usual you post obscure data. So I see this is a backdoor admisssion you posted nominal or other than REAL GDP data as is teh standard. Now you act as if it's not the standard. All people I've read in here use Real GDP and it's a known type, you don't have to cite REAL, you do if you cite nominal or other GDP data derivatives. So, back to our argument, the original one, you are wrong abouy your data and that GDP you posted was not real, hence invalid. As I stated before, Clinton and after only had 1 Q of neg GDP if we use nominal, truth is there were 3 non-consecutive with REAL GDP. I post honest numbers, you do not.

Quote

The same place you got YOUR numbers from. If you're still unable to parse that sentence, I recommend taking a remedial English class.

That is such a cop out, you posted your data before I did. Dude, you can't crap outthe data; it's bogus. I post mine, as I stand behind them. You do not.

Quote

Like geocities? Or was it angelfire? I don't recall.

I don't recall posting one of those either, if you have an argument to make, make it. It appears you don't, you allege I used ill refs, but you can't establish that. You post data of your own, I ask for a source and you stall and say it wa where I goit mine from. Considering you posted first, what does that mean? Either pony up your args and data or you lose - plain and simple.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative.

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

Quote

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

A story in an openly right wing source does not constitute "data". A law on the books of Wasilla, AK does constitute data.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative.

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

Quote

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

A story in an openly right wing source does not constitute "data". A law on the books of Wasilla, AK does constitute data.

Got any more proof someone was actually charged than in the last thread, professor?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Kitty Genovese is unsurprised.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative.

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

Quote

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

A story in an openly right wing source does not constitute "data". A law on the books of Wasilla, AK does constitute data.

Just give it up, he's constantly shopping on RW agenda sites, posting it and calling it fact. Been there, done that. If you are even able to pry a source from him, it's some Limbaughian site.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, I know - who would have thought that you'd have so much trouble understanding the phrase "I got my numbers from the same place you did" ?

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative.

Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim.

Quote

Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

"Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of".

How about you disprove the data I provided, first.

A story in an openly right wing source does not constitute "data". A law on the books of Wasilla, AK does constitute data.

Got any more proof someone was actually charged than in the last thread, professor?

Lame response. The law WAS on the books when Palin was in charge, which is all that counts.

You tried the same lame trick with Palin's statement about denying abortions to teenage rape victims.

LAME.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Lame response. The law WAS on the books when Palin was in charge, which is all that counts.

When was that law passed, again?

Where's the charges to the rape victims, again?

Oh, that's right...there WASNT.

According to the UCR reports for Wasilia, there were no rapes reported between 1995 and 1999. In 2000, there was ONE rape. Source

Then, you have the statement of the current mayor:

Quote

The Finance Department searched all financial records on our system for fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. There are no records of billings to or collections from rape victims or their insurance companies in our system.

Hmm...seems like she's saying there's been no billing of rape kit costs.

Quote

A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams.

Looks like THIS statement says the police department didn't bill rape victims for exams.

Quote

State law AS 18.68.040, which was effective 8/14/2000, would have prohibited any such billings after that date.

Looks like you shot out of the water - maybe you should have gotten your 'info' somewhere OTHER than a site in the Dem's pocket, eh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

In his defense the facts were not available on a Politburo State Approved website.

All hail the collective Komrad!