Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 23, 2014, 03:24:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 88
126  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / The Letter Dan Bilzerian’s Lawyer Wrote To Porn Star Who Dan Threw Off A Roof on: July 08, 2014, 08:14:41 PM
http://totalfratmove.com/breaking-read-the-letter-dan-bilzerians-lawyer-wrote-to-porn-star-who-dan-threw-off-a-roof/

BREAKING: Read The Letter Dan Bilzerian’s Lawyer Wrote To Porn Star Who Dan Threw Off A Roof

Several weeks ago, we reported on the story of poker playboy and All-American badass Dan Bilzerian picking up a naked porn star–quite literally by her vagina–atop a roof and tossing her into the pool below. She grabbed his shirt upon release, altering her intended trajectory. The result was a broken foot, as she clipped the edge of the pool while descending.

Man, that’s so Dan–the picking up beautiful, naked women by the vagina and throwing them part, not the injuring helpless women part. The stunt was part of a contractual agreement with Hustler. They were on the scene filming some kind of kinky pool scene, one could suppose. It didn’t go as planned, clearly.

Janice Griffith, the injured porn star, is now threatening to sue Dan. Dan’s lawyer responded to Griffith’s counsel with the letter below, one that we have obtained fucking exclusively. His response is perhaps exactly how you’d imagine Dan Bilzerian’s lawyer would respond to a poor attempt at reaching into his client’s deep pockets–with just a tinge of asshole.

Enjoy.






127  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Boehner: Why we must now sue the President on: July 08, 2014, 08:04:22 PM
I did not say any politician should be "penalized/sued/impeached" for breaking campaign promises.  I made the point that you cannot justify current bad acts by pointing the bad acts of prior presidents. 

Sure, OK.

It's just that I was under the impression that Necrosis made his comment about Bush having done the same (and worse) than what Obama has done in an effort to argue why impeaching or bringing suit against Obama was not appropriate. 

Therefore, when you responded by making the point that (I'm paraphrasing, lol) "2 wrongs don't make a right" it seemed reasonable to infer that you thought it was OK impeach, sue or otherwise penalize Obama regardless of whether Bush got in trouble or not. 

Another factor that might cause one to think this inference was reasonable is the title of the topic.

Basically, in the context of this thread "justify" seems to mean "avoid legal penalty" so actually a president probably CAN justify many sorts of bad acts as long as a prior president committed the same sort of bad acts without penalty.

But I do get that you're not using "justify" in that way.
128  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 08, 2014, 07:45:18 PM
Im not moving any goal posts.  Vaccinations are given because there is a legitimate health concern, particularly for the young and elderly.  And there are no alternative treatments.  Vaccination is the only option.  The potential for a future health issue is highly likely otherwise.  The same doesnt apply unless a woman has a condition where pregnancy can directly endanger her life or cause death. Exposure to a virus is generally beyond a persons control unless they live in quarantine.  The same cant be said for pregnancy. 

You can help yourself from having your little passive aggressive tantrums. 

Ok, how about sunscreen?  (Maybe sunscreen is not covered by insurance?)

Look, Archer, sorry if I hurt your feelings before but I don't feel like I'm having a passive-aggressive tantrum.  (What is that, exactly?)

I think maybe you're just defensive because somehow you've taken it upon yourself to defend misogyny.  I mean, first you threw in with rapists and now you're against women getting birth control.  Seems like you have some issues with women, mang, lol.

On a serious note, I'm very sorry for whatever your mommy/wife/girlfriend did to you but I have to say that it had nothing to do with me so your vitriol is misplaced. 

I'm not even female, fergawdsake. 

Can we be friends now? Grin
129  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Boehner: Why we must now sue the President on: July 08, 2014, 07:32:44 PM
Pretty poor logic.  This isn't just "a president."  It is the man who campaigned on a promise to be different.  He was guided by a number of false promises. 

And no, moral equivalency is not a strong argument. 

What!?!?  Since when in the history of this great nation has any politician been penalized/sued/impeached (i.e., more than just not being reelected) for not fulfilling campaign promises?

I'm sure Obama's attitude regarding unfulfilled campaign promises is something like what Bruce Campbell is saying here:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96iyQNPzFN0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96iyQNPzFN0</a>

Sadly, I'm probably right...
130  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Impeachment on: July 08, 2014, 07:27:15 PM
I laugh all the time.  Just not at pretty much anything you post, because it isn't the least bit funny for the most part. 

Ah ha!! You are making shit up!!!  Oh, wait....Drat, ya weaseled out by saying "for the most part".

Because I'm pretty sure you thought this was funny when I posted it on ganja thread:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhUqo9Aivs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhUqo9Aivs</a>
131  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Presidential Candidates 2016: 10 Democrats Who Might Be the Next Nominee on: July 08, 2014, 07:15:16 PM
Because leftwing liberals do not make good presidents. 

Hey!! I get this now.  When you said "I'd like to think she's unelectable, ..." all you really meant was you hoped she would never be president.  (Even if she weren't elected -- Like if she were Hillary's VP and came into the office when Hillary got taken out by Soul Crusher or something.)

My bad, I thought you were trying to convey something by using the word "unelectable".
132  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Impeachment on: July 08, 2014, 07:07:37 PM
Palin calls for Obama's impeachment
David Jackson, USA TODAY
July 8, 2014

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

"Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin wrote on the Brietbart website. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

The former Alaska governor, picked by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, also protested the federal debt, health care, executive orders and "unsustainably generous welfare-state programs" in a litany of complaints against Obama.

"President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along," Palin writes.

She adds: "It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."

While the Republican-run House, in theory, has the numbers to vote for impeachment, it is impossible to imagine that the Democratic-run Senate would take up such a matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/08/obama-sarah-palin-impeachment-john-mccain/12360017/

"His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas." 

Holy mixed metaphors, BB, you DO have a sense of humor.  Good post.
133  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Boehner: Why we must now sue the President on: July 08, 2014, 07:00:59 PM
... but we really cannot justify anything President Obama is doing wrong by pointing to the past bad deeds or poor performance of prior presidents. 

To play devil's advocate here, doesn't the legal system heavily use the concept of "precedence" when trying to determine what's acceptable? 

Why would we assume it would be any different for a president to be guided by precedent if his predecessor wasn't penalized for his precedent-setting "bad deeds and poor performance"?

(It occurs to me that some might think it's because we completely follow the example of our legal system...by penalizing the black guy more, lol.)


134  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: More evidence from the Govt itself that "Global Warming" is a farce on: July 08, 2014, 06:47:33 PM
...
Instead of logically deducting evidence that points towards bad science, because there's money to be had and made, you gobble it up like a $2 whore at a Russian bath house.
... 
Of course you dismissed John Coleman as a conspiracy theorist, any simpleton when faced with facts that go against his beliefs would claim such.
...

Errr, what?  Are you seriously saying that the main reason anyone would discount the opinion of John Coleman is because of anything other than John Coleman's seeming lack of qualification to opine about anything science-related?

Have you read his wikipedia entry?  He's a career TV weatherman known for his "amusing and irreverent style" who helped found The Weather Channel.  That's it.  He has no degree in meteorology or any other science.  He does have a degree in journalism that he got from the University of Illinois in 1957, though.  (Catch that?  1957, which is the year the Soviets launched Sputnik, lol.)

Here, read this and tell me that it makes sense to believe him over any scientist from Isaac Newton to Bill Nye the Science Guy:

John Coleman (born October 15, 1934) is an American TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel. He has retired from broadcasting after nearly 61 years, working the last twenty at KUSI-TV in San Diego.

Coleman started his career in 1953 at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at University of Illinois. After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.

At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format derisively dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style. It was then that Coleman became the original weathercaster on what was then the brand-new ABC network morning program, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden.

In 1981, he persuaded communications entrepreneur Frank Batten to help establish The Weather Channel, serving as TWC's CEO and President during the start-up and its first year of operation. After leaving TWC, Coleman became weather anchor at WCBS-TV in New York and then at WMAQ-TV in Chicago, before moving to Southern California to join the independent television station, KUSI-TV in San Diego, in what Coleman fondly calls, "his retirement job." Coleman abruptly left KUSI while on vacation in April 2014, with no on-air farewell.

Coleman was a member of the American Meteorological Society. He left this organization after he disagreed with the stance on Global Warming/Climate Change.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29

Now, I'm not saying that the other stuff you've written is without merit but it sure doesn't look good when you bring up what this John Coleman thinks.  Especially without being totally upfront about what anyone can learn about him in 30 seconds and and an explanation as to why one shouldn't discount what he says because of it.  



135  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Don Sterling is a liberal Democrat Billionaire - TYPICAL on: July 05, 2014, 03:10:15 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmvAC0fkRyI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmvAC0fkRyI</a>
136  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 05, 2014, 03:01:29 AM
You want to demise the country, it starts with healthcare. This is what he's attempting to do.

WTH, Coach? 

"Demise" is a noun meaning "death".

137  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 05, 2014, 02:51:46 AM

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KetLER8MPIc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KetLER8MPIc</a>
138  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Wall Street and Bank criminal prosecutions at 20 year low. on: July 05, 2014, 02:40:54 AM
The same Liz Warren who banked serious coin flipping foreclosed homes?   

If it's the same Liz Warren in this clip, then hells yes:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTWfa-iO9Nc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTWfa-iO9Nc</a>

BTW, I'm guessing y'all righties hate Cenk, amirite?  (He seems like a imperfect getbigger to me.)
139  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Wall Street and Bank criminal prosecutions at 20 year low. on: July 05, 2014, 02:22:04 AM
The same Liz Warren who banked serious coin flipping foreclosed homes?   

She'd have had to do a lot worse than that to make me sour on her. 

Were she to run for president, I'd be willing to bet that Hillary would lose. 

I don't see any Republican that would have a chance against her either (but I'm not really keeping track of that crowd).
140  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 03, 2014, 08:27:54 AM
Mang?   Arent you old? Its a horrible comparison because it has no relation to birth control.  Wellness check ups arent comparable to birth control either.  Vaccinations and check ups are done to maintain the wellness of the patient and/or determine a patients current state of health in order to to establish whether the patients current state of health has changed . Birth control for pregnancy prevention doesn't do any of this.

Yer movin' the goalposts, mang.  But that's OK because this shouldn't just become an exercise in if Archer can come up with a comprehensive but succinct rule for what health insurance should cover (while making sure pregnancy prevention isn't part of it).

If you ask me, pregnancy IS a medical condition that some would like to avoid so birth control methods, especially the cheaper ones, SHOULD be covered by healthcare insurance.  Especially since child birth IS covered and that's a hell of lot more expensive than birth control.

Oh well, as a dood (am I too old to write that in your seemingly not-so-open-minded world?, lol) it doesn't bother me much since I can't get pregnant.

How, though, do you think women will react to all of this?  Get Out The Vote, indeed!

Sheesh, the fact that we're even discussing this is a victory of sorts for the left, don't ya think?
141  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Wall Street and Bank criminal prosecutions at 20 year low. on: July 03, 2014, 12:05:46 AM
Paging Elizabeth Warren, paging Elizabeth Warren.
142  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 02, 2014, 04:16:12 PM

You don't win anything because you prove my point.   The potential for a medical condition is there because the traveler may come into contact with a virus.  I would argue that since the person is choosing to travel of their own free will he or she should pay for their own inoculation.  Anyway, this is not a fair comparison to birth control.

Hey mang, just trying to answer your question which was "Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition?"

And, seems to me, nearly all vaccinations would be an answer as would almost any check-up not prompted by some complaint.
143  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Official Chris Christie Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
So you're going to double down on stupid?  I never said she was unelectable, as my quote clearly shows.  You tried to attribute that word to me, completely out of context.  That's what some dishonest liberals do.  But whatever.  You're starting to bore me. 

Attiribute my ass.  You USED the word unelectable in regard to Elizabeth Warren ("I'd like to think she's unelectable...").

And I ASKED you if that's what you said.  I did not go around saying, "Oh, BB is claiming that...blah, blah, blah.."

That's not making shit up.  Not sure what else to tell ya. 

Man, why so pissy lately?
144  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 02, 2014, 04:00:57 PM
Im saying nothing of the sort.  Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition?  Anyone who is perscribed preventative medicine is given that medicine because they show symptoms whether early or not of a medical condition that requires medical intervention to prevent or treat.   Birth control does not qualify.

Hepatitis vaccinations and the like for overseas travelers.   What do I win?
145  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: July 02, 2014, 03:58:35 PM
Activists sue to block marijuana sales tax in Colorado
By Kelly David Burke
Published July 01, 2014
FoxNews.com

Marijuana legalization advocates are suing to block state and local governments from collecting certain taxes on weed sold in Colorado, out of concern that businesses paying the fees would incriminate themselves at the federal level.

The suit, which addresses the complications that arise from a state legalizing a drug that remains illegal under federal law, was filed in Denver District Court by local attorney Rob Corry. The main goal is to reduce the 29 percent wholesale and retail taxes collected at the state and local levels on sales of recreational marijuana, and specifically block those taxes that apply only to their industry.

Recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado when voters approved an amendment to the state constitution in November 2012. Legal sales began Jan. 1.

But the lawsuit contends that requiring those involved in Colorado's legal marijuana industry to pay taxes could get them in trouble with the feds.

"They're open records, and they are admitting to a federal crime," Corry said. "It's still a federal crime to sell marijuana and I don't agree with that law, but it is the law."

Corry filed the suit on behalf of six individuals, two of whom use only pseudonyms in the complaint. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, the Denver Treasury Division and the state Department of Revenue are listed as defendants.

The suit uses the rationale that federal law takes precedence over state law: "The underlying rationale of the preemption doctrine is that the Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that 'interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of Congress.'"

"The fact that there are marijuana-specific taxes," Corry maintains, "puts every single one of these business owners and every single one of these consumers in danger of federal prosecution, potentially. That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment."

But when it comes to taxes, the federal government also is entitled to its share, explained Amanda Cruser, a Denver area tax attorney who once worked for the U.S. Department of Justice. "On the federal side, if you don't pay your income taxes and you don't pay your employment taxes, you're going to be subjecting yourself to criminal tax charges," she said.

The irony of the federal government collecting taxes on a substance illegal under federal law is not lost on federal drug task force head Tom Gorman.

"As far as I know, if the federal government takes money from a criminal enterprise, that's part of money laundering," Gorman said. "When they can seize the money because it's illegal but then to take it in and use the money, to me would be a violation of law in itself."

In an August 2013 press release, the Justice Department said it had notified Colorado and Washington (the two states that have legalized recreational marijuana) that it would essentially look the other way -- at least for now. "The Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time," the statement said.

That stance has done little to clarify the situation since this and subsequent administrations would reserve the right to change that policy. The lack of certainty has left both opponents and proponents of marijuana legalization frustrated and confused.

"I think the federal government needs to make up its mind whether they have supremacy over state law, and then enforce that law," Gorman said. "It makes no sense. The federal government needs to step up and say if you wanna change it, change it in Congress not state by state."

Corry, a legalization advocate, agrees. "This question of the tension between federal law and state law is the question that confronts the marijuana community every day," he said. "Our governor has been essentially impotent. He should demand that Congress should do something about this and we hope this lawsuit, by depriving them from tax revenue, will cause that to happen."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/01/colorado-lawsuit-calls-for-tax-reductions-on-recreational-pot/?intcmp=latestnews

Does this really make sense as anything other than club owners trying to avoid paying taxes?  I mean, sure, they don't want to run into any future issues with having violated federal law but it's not like they're conducting business in a dark corner of the universe.  In other words, the federal government isn't going to need to depend on them paying taxes to prove they were selling weed when it's being done so openly.

BTW, wasn't there a somewhat similar issue that was cleared up lickety-split when banks were concerned violating federal law by letting these cannabis club owners deposit money?   Pretty sure it's back in this thread somewhere...
146  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 02, 2014, 03:43:28 PM
Pregnancy is a condition that requires medical attention.  Preventing pregnancy is not.  Illness is your word.  I never used the term.   Name a preventive medicine covered by insurance that is perscribed to prevent a condition someone doesnt have early signs for or is unlikely to get?

You're right, you did not use the word illness.

But you're contending that healthcare insurance shouldn't be covering the prevention of a condition that requires medical attention?

Can you please rephrase your last question?  I'm not sure I understand.  (But, as an old man, I'm just itching to use a colonoscopy as an example if I can, lol.)
147  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Official Chris Christie Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 03:39:10 PM
Roll Eyes  You want two?  Here you go:

1.  Falsely claiming I said Elizabeth Warren was unelectable. 

..

Whoa, BB, I didn't claim you said she was unelectable.  Even from your quotes one can see that.  I asked you if you said she was unelectable (because you'd said something similar to that).

Are you a child rapist?  (Answer is "No", I'm 99% sure.)  That's not the same thing as claiming that you are. 

(Although asking an outrageous question like that WOULD be out of line, sure, but it's not the same as claiming that you are a child rapist.  lol)

148  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 02, 2014, 03:26:10 PM
The viagra comparison is thrown around a lot and its one of the poorest arguments.  Viagra is not perscribed to a person unless they have a medical condition which requires it. Birth control perscribed for the purpose of preventing pregnancy does not treat a medical condition.  A better comparison is peopecia for hair loss.   Finasteride for prostate enlargement is a recognized medical condition and covered by insurance while using finasteride for hair loss is not covered by insurance.

Are you saying that you think that healthcare insurance should pay only for treatment of a "medical condition"? 

And by your reckoning, pregnancy is not a medical condition since one can't call it an illness?

Hmmm, it's got to be a little more complicated than that, otherwise a lot of preventive medicine, wouldn't it? 
149  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: July 02, 2014, 03:10:47 PM
this may sound weird but i'm honestly surprised at how disingenuous and downright dishonest liberals have been about this case.  I honestly was starting to agree with a lot of their points until I actually started to find out the facts of the case.  wow.  this is all a bunch of bullshit. 

Hey hey Bears,  this new info from an AP article I've excerpted below doesn't impact your opinion about whether anyone should have birth control bought for them but you may be interested to learn that the ruling isn't as narrow as it seemed on Monday in that it now seems that the ruling does not only apply to only 4 of the 20 methods of birth control.  (At least not for the closely-held businesses other than Hobby Lobby that are challenging the law in court.)

Associated Press
July 1, 2014 10:23 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
...


More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html
150  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: July 02, 2014, 10:00:50 AM

So you denied branding anyone who disagreed with you as a pro-rape and desperately tried to pass off your insinuation as a joke but here you are doing it again.  Your lack of self awareness is amazing or could it be that you are just so stupid you have no idea what you're saying.   Most likely youre a liar who got caught saying something ridiculously immature and when called on it tried to deny you meant it.   

Holy Wants-to-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it!!

I mean, you can't be serious, can you?  This from the guy who a few posts up was writing that I had raped a 5-year old boy?  Too freakin' funny!  Here's a thought:  You and your various personalities maybe ought to have a little pow-wow where you discuss consistency and the meaning of the word "hypocrite".  (Naw, fuck it, this is Getbig -- I expect a little craziness, lol.)

Honestly, crazy-guy, when I quipped to Shockwave that he was throwing in with the pro-rape crowd, I was trying to inject some levity into the conversation while making him aware of how his (and your) arguments could be perceived.  You can doubt this all ya want but it seems to me, that since you've clearly taken a look at my historical posts (not because I got your goat, though, lol), I'm sure that you've seen that I try to be funny pretty often.  Like all wannabe funny guys, though, I do fail sometimes.  So when Shockwave seemed to be sincerely offended at my joke, I told him I was just kidding.  

I'm sorry that you find due process to be funny.  You see, due process is the basis for our legal system.  Someone can't accuse another person of something without proving the allegation.  Maybe you would be better served moving to some backward third world nation that doesn't value due process of the law.

Uh, Hello?  McFly?  You do realize that no one was accusing anyone in particular of anything, don't you?  You realize that the legal system was not involved, right?  Were someone being charged with a crime, I would agree with you.  But that isn't the case.  

Now, it does occur to me that what you're trying to say is that accepting the study's questionable statistics about the prevalence of sexual assaults could prejudice those in the legal system (cops, DA's, judges, juries) against those who will in the future be charged with sexual assault and thereby arguably deprive them of due process but if you mean that then you suck at writing because that's not what you've said.

BTW, no hard feelings on my part, honestly.  I didn't mean to abuse your goat, I really didn't. lol
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 88
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!