Women have to PROVE they were raped

[thereisnospoon]

so sick of geezy old skeezers creepin in my womb/vagina. ew.

im thinking they go home and jerk it to the legislation they pass on the vag.

they have passed the point of offensive..now they are just stalkery creepshows.

Yeah....My wife cannot stand women who think with their lady parts instead of their brains.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Some here want to send people to jail because they say so! just because they say so no evidence no nothing! they say so so men should go to jail!

Too funny.

So if someone was hugely likely to have committed murder but there wasn't any physical evidence, you would be happy to have that person live next door to you?

I bet you're the sort who wants Charles Manson out of prison.

Your command of the English language is stellar. "Hugely Likely"?...No one, I mean no one ever places two adverbs together in a sentence.
Now look you emotionally guided 16 year old.....Everyone deserves their day in court.
The system is set up such that if one innocent person is convicted, the system is in total failure.
Yes, guilty people do get off. The system is not perfect. Too often I find myself on the side of the "people" who because of a missed piece of evidence, or a failure to disclose every piece of evidence to the defense or a mistake by the investigating police, ot a judge makes a ruling not based in law but in his or her political leanings, a guilty person goes free. It is just as tragic when an emotionally charged community out for blood, convicts a person before they have their day in court.
It appears the liberals have taken that position on this issue. Over WHAT? A social entitlement? PLEASE!
Criminal cases are not decided on physical evidence alone. There is witness testimony, inevitable discovery, circumstantial evidence, etc.
Because of the nature of sex crimes, prosecutors are careful to make sure every piece of evidence has been obtained with "clean hands".

 

[Barb]

Umm. No they do not...Social programs that take up half the budget are entitlement and assistance programs.
Know your role here sister. Watch read and learn before posting.
Law enforcement, public protection ( fire, rescue, first responders) Courts are funded locally. The federal education budget is but a very small portion of total public education expenditures. The fact is the federal government has no business involving itself in public schools. Now should it be involved in higher learning.
Now, you don't have a fucking clue what defines the drop in the bucket...
Here it is.....We have a mythical mile of roadway..Each day 100,000 vehicles use this road.
One driver on his way to work after finishing his Sausage and egg Mc Muffin, decides it's ok to throw the wrapper out onto the road. A police officer sees this, pulls over the driver. The officer asks the driver why he did this....The driver retorts in an agitated tone, "why are you giving me a ticket?!! It's just one little piece of paper!!!!!"..
The drop in the bucket....Suppose that all 100,000 driver decide to throw their Sausage and Egg Mc Muffin wrapper on to the road.... Ya know what we have?...A big fucking MESS..
So when one you libs attempts to justifiy the next social entitlement by stating "It's only this much!"..I turn your attention to that one mile of roadway..
Now,You greedy liberal slime child woman , shut your pie hole.

People with PhD's in political science disagree with you, and I think they might have a better bead on the situation, and the definitions, and the allocations, than an arrogant (and a stunningly ignorant, for all of that arrogance) little prick like you.

By all means, post links to their work. Otherwise, I don't give a shit what you believe.
Facts are facts and they are not on your side.
You are in desperate need to be anally penetrated you fucking hag.

Your fetishes don't belong here, and expose an unfortunately located Napoleon complex

As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance. Means tested cash welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget.
Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16

There are a host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.Lets not forget fire departments, police departments, and the military.
Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 232-237 see also Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare, 15-17, and Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

see also Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

 

[thereisnospoon]

People with PhD's in political science disagree with you, and I think they might have a better bead on the situation, and the definitions, and the allocations, than an arrogant (and a stunningly ignorant, for all of that arrogance) little prick like you.

By all means, post links to their work. Otherwise, I don't give a shit what you believe.
Facts are facts and they are not on your side.
You are in desperate need to be anally penetrated you fucking hag.

Your fetishes don't belong here, and expose an unfortunately located Napoleon complex

As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance. Means tested cash welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget.
Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16

There are a host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.Lets not forget fire departments, police departments, and the military.
Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 232-237 see also Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare, 15-17, and Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

see also Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

Nice try. Who cares what these tow guys think with their interpretation of what constitutes social spending.
The fact is social spending which includes ALL social safety net entitlements is HALF of the federal budget.
Infrastructure, education and all the other nonsense you attempt to pile on is exactly that. Nonsense.
Even those brain dead enough to the point where they decide to become liberals know that social programs are entitlement spending.
Your side has tried the shift the narrative to equate for example, national defense and first responders as "socialism"....Bullshit.
You can believe what you wish. You can cite all the left wing publications and authors under the sun. Those references above are the opinion of the writers.
It still does not change the facts.
Bottom line.. The federal government spends far too much money on social programs. The federal government spends far too much money administering welfare and other social programs. The federal government spends way too much money on waste fraud and abuse of social and other welfare programs. There are too many people collecting public assistance who are simply gaming the system.
Tell ya what, you go ahead and write to your local state representative, state senator, both of your US Senators and your US House district representative and you tell them to end the waste fraud and abuse and to slash the cost to administer social spending, and only then will you gain the trust of the taxpayers.

 

[Barb]

By all means, post links to their work. Otherwise, I don't give a shit what you believe.
Facts are facts and they are not on your side.
You are in desperate need to be anally penetrated you fucking hag.

Your fetishes don't belong here, and expose an unfortunately located Napoleon complex

As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance. Means tested cash welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget.
Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16

There are a host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.Lets not forget fire departments, police departments, and the military.
Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 232-237 see also Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare, 15-17, and Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

see also Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

Nice try. Who cares what these tow guys think with their interpretation of what constitutes social spending.[...].

previously:

By all means, post links to their work.Otherwise [...]

Stockman isn't a PhD, but he was Reagan's Director of OMB
STOCKMAN, David Alan - Biographical Information

STOCKMAN, David Alan, a Representative from Michigan; born in Fort Hood, Bell County, Tex., November 10, 1946; educated in the public schools of St. Joseph, Mich. graduated from Lakeshore High School, 1964; B.A., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., 1968; graduate studies, Harvard University, 1968-1970, 1974-1975; served as special assistant to United States Representative John Anderson of Illinois, 1970-1972; executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972-1975; elected as a Republican to the Ninety-fifth and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1977-January 27, 1981); resigned on January 27, 1981; Director of the Office of Management and Budget 1981-1985; managing director, Salomon Brothers, Inc., New York City, 1985-1988; is a resident of Greenwich, Conn.

Martin Gilens

Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University. His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press) and Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy (1999, University of Chicago Press), and has published on political inequality, mass media, race, gender, and welfare politics in theAmerican Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science,The Journal of Politics, the British Journal of Political Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, and the Berkeley Journal of Sociology. He holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California Berkeley, and taught at Yale University and UCLA before joining the faculty at Princeton. His research has been supported by the Russell Sage Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study, and the Social Science Research Council

http://cbeweb-1.fullerton.edu/centers/econcenter/TeachingConference/Schiller bio.pdf

Bradley R. Schiller has over two decades of experience teaching introductory economics
at The American University, the University of California (Berkeley and Santa Cruz), and
the University of Maryland. He has given guest lectures at nearly 100 colleges ranging
from Fresno, California, to Istanbul, Turkey. Dr. Schiller's unique contribution to
teaching is his ability to relate basic principles to current socioeconomic problems,
institutions, and public policy decisions. This perspective is evident throughout Essentials
of Economics.
Dr. Schiller derives this policy focus from his extensive experience as a Washington
consultant. He has been a consultant to most major federal agencies, many congressional
committees, and political candidates. In addition, he has evaluated scores of government
programs and helped design others. His studies of discrimination, training programs, tax
reform, pensions, welfare, Social Security, and lifetime wage patterns have appeared in
both professional journals and popular media. Dr. Schiller is also a frequent commentator
on economic policy for television, radio, and newspapers.
Dr. Schiller received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1969. His B.A. degree, with great
distinction, was completed at the University of California (Berkeley) in 1965. He is now
a professor of economics in the School of Public Affairs at The American University.

Hartman's not a political scientist, but still he's no slouch

Thom Hartmann Biography

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your fetishes don't belong here, and expose an unfortunately located Napoleon complex

As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance. Means tested cash welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget.
Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16

There are a host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.Lets not forget fire departments, police departments, and the military.
Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 232-237 see also Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare, 15-17, and Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

see also Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

Nice try. Who cares what these tow guys think with their interpretation of what constitutes social spending.[...].

previously:



Stockman isn't a PhD, but he was Reagan's Director of OMB
STOCKMAN, David Alan - Biographical Information



Martin Gilens

Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University. His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press) and Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy (1999, University of Chicago Press), and has published on political inequality, mass media, race, gender, and welfare politics in theAmerican Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science,The Journal of Politics, the British Journal of Political Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, and the Berkeley Journal of Sociology. He holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California Berkeley, and taught at Yale University and UCLA before joining the faculty at Princeton. His research has been supported by the Russell Sage Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study, and the Social Science Research Council

http://cbeweb-1.fullerton.edu/centers/econcenter/TeachingConference/Schiller bio.pdf

Bradley R. Schiller has over two decades of experience teaching introductory economics
at The American University, the University of California (Berkeley and Santa Cruz), and
the University of Maryland. He has given guest lectures at nearly 100 colleges ranging
from Fresno, California, to Istanbul, Turkey. Dr. Schiller's unique contribution to
teaching is his ability to relate basic principles to current socioeconomic problems,
institutions, and public policy decisions. This perspective is evident throughout Essentials
of Economics.
Dr. Schiller derives this policy focus from his extensive experience as a Washington
consultant. He has been a consultant to most major federal agencies, many congressional
committees, and political candidates. In addition, he has evaluated scores of government
programs and helped design others. His studies of discrimination, training programs, tax
reform, pensions, welfare, Social Security, and lifetime wage patterns have appeared in
both professional journals and popular media. Dr. Schiller is also a frequent commentator
on economic policy for television, radio, and newspapers.
Dr. Schiller received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1969. His B.A. degree, with great
distinction, was completed at the University of California (Berkeley) in 1965. He is now
a professor of economics in the School of Public Affairs at The American University.

Hartman's not a political scientist, but still he's no slouch

Thom Hartmann Biography

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All of your blather is very impressive..
However, once again you have been proven wrong.
In this link, it is very clear. Social spending just for Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP accounts for 21% of the federal budget...Social Safety Net programs account for 15% of the federal expenditures. Social Security, which according to those who are desperate to keep it as is, accounts for another 20% of federal expenditures....Add those three things up and we get 54% of the federal budget going to pay for social spending...No firetrucks. No cops, None of the other crap you tried to throw in there, Ms Welfare hack...Go suck off a taxpayer in Sweden.
All of those who support high taxes and unfettered spending on social programs, are themselves leeches and freeloaders.
You weep for the less fortunate while excluding yourselves from any responsibility. You demand others observe your perception of compassion while demanding your compassion be funded by others.
Now, I have a question....What the fuck does this have to do with how our criminal justice system functions?
Ya know what? Never mind. I already know the answer.....Any response from you will probably be off point.

 

[Barb]

Nice try. Who cares what these tow guys think with their interpretation of what constitutes social spending.[...].

previously:



Stockman isn't a PhD, but he was Reagan's Director of OMB
STOCKMAN, David Alan - Biographical Information



Martin Gilens



http://cbeweb-1.fullerton.edu/centers/econcenter/TeachingConference/Schiller bio.pdf

Bradley R. Schiller has over two decades of experience teaching introductory economics
at The American University, the University of California (Berkeley and Santa Cruz), and
the University of Maryland. He has given guest lectures at nearly 100 colleges ranging
from Fresno, California, to Istanbul, Turkey. Dr. Schiller's unique contribution to
teaching is his ability to relate basic principles to current socioeconomic problems,
institutions, and public policy decisions. This perspective is evident throughout Essentials
of Economics.
Dr. Schiller derives this policy focus from his extensive experience as a Washington
consultant. He has been a consultant to most major federal agencies, many congressional
committees, and political candidates. In addition, he has evaluated scores of government
programs and helped design others. His studies of discrimination, training programs, tax
reform, pensions, welfare, Social Security, and lifetime wage patterns have appeared in
both professional journals and popular media. Dr. Schiller is also a frequent commentator
on economic policy for television, radio, and newspapers.
Dr. Schiller received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1969. His B.A. degree, with great
distinction, was completed at the University of California (Berkeley) in 1965. He is now
a professor of economics in the School of Public Affairs at The American University.

Hartman's not a political scientist, but still he's no slouch

Thom Hartmann Biography

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All of your blather is very impressive..
However, once again you have been proven wrong.
In this link, it is very clear. Social spending just for Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP accounts for 21% of the federal budget...Social Safety Net programs account for 15% of the federal expenditures. Social Security, which according to those who are desperate to keep it as is, accounts for another 20% of federal expenditures....Add those three things up and we get 54% of the federal budget going to pay for social spending...No firetrucks. No cops, None of the other crap you tried to throw in there, Ms Welfare hack...Go suck off a taxpayer in Sweden.
All of those who support high taxes and unfettered spending on social programs, are themselves leeches and freeloaders.
You weep for the less fortunate while excluding yourselves from any responsibility. You demand others observe your perception of compassion while demanding your compassion be funded by others.
Now, I have a question....What the fuck does this have to do with how our criminal justice system functions?
Ya know what? Never mind. I already know the answer.....Any response from you will probably be off point.

Still being a dishonest little prick. Here’s where YOU started the argument, AND where the basis of said argument was needs tested welfare, not the entirety of the safety net.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257084-women-have-to-prove-they-were-raped-4.html#post6246066

You want to move the parameters of a discussion to suit your whims, truncate your OWN questions out of the posts you “quote,” hold your breath, cover your ears, and declare yourself correct when you were clearly handed your ass, and then you expect to be treated like an adult.

Take your nihilism and live on an island by yourself. You’ll never find blind acceptance of your bullshit anywhere else.

 

[Cowman]

Some girls, they rape so easy.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

I said it before, and Ill say it again, Islam dictates that it is permissible to rape a woman if she is showing the shape of her body and/or is under the age of 9.

The man should not be punished if the filthy Ameri-CAN bittch does not cover up properly, and Islam dictates that rape of 9 year old girls will prepare women for the ABUSE that is to come in the future as a Muslim wife.

 

[Cowman]

I said it before, and Ill say it again, Islam dictates that it is permissible to rape a woman if she is showing the shape of her body and/or is under the age of 9.

The man should not be punished if the filthy Ameri-CAN bittch does not cover up properly, and Islam dictates that rape of 9 year old girls will prepare women for the ABUSE that is to come in the future as a Muslim wife.

I don't know why you thanked my post. I was mocking a guy just as conservative as the muslims you're bitching about.

Christians and Muslims, conservative siblings.

 

[thereisnospoon]

previously:



Stockman isn't a PhD, but he was Reagan's Director of OMB
STOCKMAN, David Alan - Biographical Information



Martin Gilens



http://cbeweb-1.fullerton.edu/centers/econcenter/TeachingConference/Schiller bio.pdf



Hartman's not a political scientist, but still he's no slouch

Thom Hartmann Biography

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All of your blather is very impressive..
However, once again you have been proven wrong.
In this link, it is very clear. Social spending just for Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP accounts for 21% of the federal budget...Social Safety Net programs account for 15% of the federal expenditures. Social Security, which according to those who are desperate to keep it as is, accounts for another 20% of federal expenditures....Add those three things up and we get 54% of the federal budget going to pay for social spending...No firetrucks. No cops, None of the other crap you tried to throw in there, Ms Welfare hack...Go suck off a taxpayer in Sweden.
All of those who support high taxes and unfettered spending on social programs, are themselves leeches and freeloaders.
You weep for the less fortunate while excluding yourselves from any responsibility. You demand others observe your perception of compassion while demanding your compassion be funded by others.
Now, I have a question....What the fuck does this have to do with how our criminal justice system functions?
Ya know what? Never mind. I already know the answer.....Any response from you will probably be off point.

Still being a dishonest little prick. Here’s where YOU started the argument, AND where the basis of said argument was needs tested welfare, not the entirety of the safety net.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257084-women-have-to-prove-they-were-raped-4.html#post6246066

You want to move the parameters of a discussion to suit your whims, truncate your OWN questions out of the posts you “quote,” hold your breath, cover your ears, and declare yourself correct when you were clearly handed your ass, and then you expect to be treated like an adult.

Take your nihilism and live on an island by yourself. You’ll never find blind acceptance of your bullshit anywhere else.

Ahh the mind of the frustrated and angry..
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time.
Go bake cookies. Or something else you are good at. Because this posting on message boards thing....is not your forte.
Oh, I state facts. I do not look for acceptance. That's your problem... The need to feel you are with those who are popular. That need to feel as though you belong.
Remember those important figures....21% 20% and 13%.....They haunt you........

 

[skye]

It is so amusing to see how some women and men here are still trying to convict without evidence.

It can't be done my dears...not in a court of Law,

 

[percysunshine]

ThinkProgress is the source?

Another aluminum foil beenie thread.

 

[Barb]

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All of your blather is very impressive..
However, once again you have been proven wrong.
In this link, it is very clear. Social spending just for Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP accounts for 21% of the federal budget...Social Safety Net programs account for 15% of the federal expenditures. Social Security, which according to those who are desperate to keep it as is, accounts for another 20% of federal expenditures....Add those three things up and we get 54% of the federal budget going to pay for social spending...No firetrucks. No cops, None of the other crap you tried to throw in there, Ms Welfare hack...Go suck off a taxpayer in Sweden.
All of those who support high taxes and unfettered spending on social programs, are themselves leeches and freeloaders.
You weep for the less fortunate while excluding yourselves from any responsibility. You demand others observe your perception of compassion while demanding your compassion be funded by others.
Now, I have a question....What the fuck does this have to do with how our criminal justice system functions?
Ya know what? Never mind. I already know the answer.....Any response from you will probably be off point.

Still being a dishonest little prick. Here’s where YOU started the argument, AND where the basis of said argument was needs tested welfare, not the entirety of the safety net.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257084-women-have-to-prove-they-were-raped-4.html#post6246066

You want to move the parameters of a discussion to suit your whims, truncate your OWN questions out of the posts you “quote,” hold your breath, cover your ears, and declare yourself correct when you were clearly handed your ass, and then you expect to be treated like an adult.

Take your nihilism and live on an island by yourself. You’ll never find blind acceptance of your bullshit anywhere else.

Ahh the mind of the frustrated and angry..
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time.
Go bake cookies. Or something else you are good at. Because this posting on message boards thing....is not your forte.
Oh, I state facts. I do not look for acceptance. That's your problem... The need to feel you are with those who are popular. That need to feel as though you belong.
Remember those important figures....21% 20% and 13%.....They haunt you........

Physician...

Misogyny, who'da thunk?
Piss off little man.

 

[skye]

I am sorry to break it to all of you bleeding hearts .....but people can not to be put in jail with hearsay,,,you are going to need solid evidence the woman was raped.


If you don't have the evidence.... don't waste your time! and people's money.

 

[Connery]

I am sorry to break it to all of you bleeding hearts .....but people can not to be put in jail with hearsay,,,you are going to need solid evidence the woman was raped.


If you don't have the evidence.... don't waste your time! and people's money.

Nice post. I agree the standard for the burden of proof is a beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is a difficult task and without more than mere words it would be hard to convict.

 

[percysunshine]

Grammar was always a bitch when I was in 5th grade.

 

[skye]

I am sorry to break it to all of you bleeding hearts .....but people can not to be put in jail with hearsay,,,you are going to need solid evidence the woman was raped.


If you don't have the evidence.... don't waste your time! and people's money.

Nice post. I agree the standard for the burden of proof is a beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is a difficult task and without more than mere words it would be hard to convict.

exactly... and some of these bleeding hearts loonies ...wanting to incarcerate a man .... just because they say so? only with hearsay?

It's ludicrous and a waste of time and money for everybody.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Still being a dishonest little prick. Here’s where YOU started the argument, AND where the basis of said argument was needs tested welfare, not the entirety of the safety net.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/257084-women-have-to-prove-they-were-raped-4.html#post6246066

You want to move the parameters of a discussion to suit your whims, truncate your OWN questions out of the posts you “quote,” hold your breath, cover your ears, and declare yourself correct when you were clearly handed your ass, and then you expect to be treated like an adult.

Take your nihilism and live on an island by yourself. You’ll never find blind acceptance of your bullshit anywhere else.

Ahh the mind of the frustrated and angry..
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time.
Go bake cookies. Or something else you are good at. Because this posting on message boards thing....is not your forte.
Oh, I state facts. I do not look for acceptance. That's your problem... The need to feel you are with those who are popular. That need to feel as though you belong.
Remember those important figures....21% 20% and 13%.....They haunt you........

Physician...

Misogyny, who'da thunk?
Piss off little man.

Oh no..Pissing you off is way too much fun.
The thing is you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
Keep it coming. Free entertainment.
Oh.....21%.....20%....13%........
And please...Don't give me the female victim bullshit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am sorry to break it to all of you bleeding hearts .....but people can not to be put in jail with hearsay,,,you are going to need solid evidence the woman was raped.


If you don't have the evidence.... don't waste your time! and people's money.

Nice post. I agree the standard for the burden of proof is a beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is a difficult task and without more than mere words it would be hard to convict.

Careful..The term is "beyond a reasonable doubt"..Otherwise, spot on!