@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;44084 wrote:Wow...big stretch to read that the majority distorts reality and the truth, so that they wind up looking like the "good guys"...please...you forgot who you're talking to....you can say whatever...you can even find documentation to support your argument...what? you 'd have us believe it's from an objective source, and not one "tainted"....now, that's one that "really" belongs in the "humor section". LOL
No reason to get "all emotional"....take your little marbles, and go home...no one wants to play with you...
p.s. where are your minions that agree with you? Ooops...all I hear is silence.
IS your real name Al Sharpton Or Jesse jackson ? cause you sure spew a lot of hate towards Whites You Racist BASTARD :FU1:
@REDWHITEBLUE2,
REDWHITEBLUE2;44195 wrote:IS your real name Al Sharpton Or Jesse jackson ? cause you sure spew a lot of hate towards Whites You Racist BASTARD :FU1:
Excuse me...but Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are honorable men...and do not hate white people...I don't hate "white people"....I hate racists.
And I'd love to hear what the moderators have to say about your insulting me....as long as I have been here, I have never called anyone, "a bastard'...my mother and father were married, proper, thank you....you should learn not to wear your feelings on your sleeve.
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;44208 wrote:Excuse me...but Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are honorable men...and do not hate white people...I don't hate "white people"....I hate racists.
And I'd love to hear what the moderators have to say about your insulting me....as long as I have been here, I have never called anyone, "a bastard'...my mother and father were married, proper, thank you....you should learn not to wear your feelings on your sleeve.
You mean the same Jesse Jackson who condemned the Duke lacrosse players publically before any substantive evidence concerning the crime was made public by the DA's office? The same Jesse Jackson who agreed to have his Raindow/Push coalition pay for the college education of the stripper who committed the crimes of slander and making a false police report?
Yeah, he doesn't have a decidedly anti-white agenda at all....
aaronssongs;44274 wrote:Oh, what the OJ Simpson defense....just because the evidence didn't support the allegation, there absolutely was no wrong doing???
What were Duke Lacrosse players doing, in the first place, having "sex parties"...no responsibility right? It was the strippers fault, right? Incredible!
Indeed, Jesse Jackson and his forces came to the "aid" of the stripper, just like the opposition was so overwhelmingly prone to assume there was no possible "wrong doing" on the part of the Lacrosse players. It works both ways. I suppose when Jesse Jackson was acting as a negotiator for the US, trying to win release of POWs...he he had a "anti-white" agenda?
You speak with"forked tongue".
The difference between those defending the lacrosse players and those condemning them is simple: the accused are supposed to be presumed innocent. Or does that notion not fly to your mind? Hiring strippers isn't illegal, MANY men, young and old do it. You might not approve of it, but a woman willing to expose herself for money has a right to do so, and her clients have a right to pay for her services. Jesse Jackson decided that this case was a simple matter of spoiled white kids abusing a poor black woman trying to make it in the world. It turns out, that we presume innocence for a reason.
Jackson is not without positive qualities. With few exceptions, most people have SOME positive aspects to their personalities. Jackson, being a reverend, I believe truly values life and so tried to negotiate the release of POW's. However, that does not excuse his actions in the Duke case, or any other of his anti-white activities including the labeling of New York jews as "haimies".
@aaronssongs,
Finnerty was a trouble-maker. The media suppressed that fact. He had a history of assault, and in fact assaulted a gay in DC during the trial. I still suspect not all were totally innocent.
aaronssongs;47339 wrote:"The accused are supposed to be presumed innocent"???? You can say this of the "white" Lacrosse players, but you would throw (have thrown) the black students "way up under the bus". That is why your arguments make absolutely no sense at all...because on the one hand, you call me "a racist", at the drop of a hat...but don't see your own hypocrisy, and racist attitude.
No, hiring strippers is not illegal...and many men, young and old do it...legal? In most circumstances, yes...Wise or prudent? maybe not...downright hedonistic and tasteless? Most definitely! Were the 18-twenty-something players "cherubs-in-disguise", or, perhaps,were they , more than likely, looking for a little "sumthin sumthin'' to go with the strippin'???? It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to assume that they were. And "Sybil-like", now you want to go defending the strippers' "right" to "expose herself for money", and the "clients" (or is it 'johns"??) right to pay for said services?????? Which is it? For the strippers or against? You want it both ways.
Could it possibly have been due to alcohol, drugs, expectations, and "warm blood", that things got out of hand, on both sides...and the girls were expecting to be paid, and the players "balked" and "kicked them to the curb", and one girl decided to get "even"....that sounds more like it....much to the chagrin of the less than chivalrous "players"...the accusations wound up being "just desserts"...only for them to claim "righteous indignation"...and to prevent further embarrassment for their team and the school, "cried foul"...and "played the victims".
Thank you for you compliments concerning Jackson...I'm sure it was extremely hard for you to come up with that. Only to disclaim the endorsement in the very next sentence, by diminishing whatever good he may have done in the past, as "default mode".
He profusely apologized for his "Hymietown" comment concerning New York Jews, who were criticizing his efforts to act as a liaison with the opposition...(ah, but you couldn't even look up the correct spelling of the comment in question...and have the nerve to criticize me for not providing links....you deserve to be ridiculed at every turn) You're obviously not as knowledgeable as you claim to be...schooling or no.
And, remember...I'm the one without a diploma...but you couldn't tell it. LOL
The difference between the Jena Six case and the Duke Lacrosse Case is that the black students in Jena DID NOT CONTEST THE ACCUSATIONS. The issues arose over for what they were being tried, not whether or not they did it. Presumption of innocence goes away once a suspect admits to the crime. I suggest you look over the cases again, it's really uncharacteristic of you to make such a glaring error.
So to your mind, strippers that turn into prostitutes in a single night have the right to falsely accuse their clients of rape for lack of payment? Your issue seems to come from the fact that rich white kids were hiring a poor black woman for their entertainment, and not that any crime was committed. They probably ARE stupid, arrogant WASPS that got their jollies from watching an attractive woman take her clothes off, so? Does that give her the right to waste thousands of taxpayer dollars and police manpower with a false accusation? She made choices in her life, and she chose to be a stripper, which is fine, it's a service in high-demand, and she is free to do so. However, you can't condemn her clients for paying her for a service SHE WAS OFFERING. That's like blaming a candy store for spoiling a kid's dinner.
Jesse Jackson apologized for his comments.....he still made them. I can call somebody a spick, and apologize for it, that doesn't mean I didn't say it, and didn't mean it. Jackson wants to advance blacks at the expense of others, and that is reflective of racism.
I'm not going to argue the Jena Six case with you again, as several weeks ago the issue was resolved. My point is, regardless of who YOU blame for the 6:1 assault, the students admitted to committing the crime, whereas the Duke players denied it. In this country, it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt, the defense does NOT have to prove innocence. If somebody admits to a crime, barring torture or stress (and evidence exists for neither case in the Jena Six incident), guilt proven no?
So that's a "yes" then? You believe that any man who hires a stripper is deserving of false accusations of rape and assault. Thanks for clearing that up.
I was of the impression that "rape" was non-consensual sex. Seems to me, even if the kids failed to pay her for sex, she still consented to doing it. You can't possibly believe that failing to pay your hooker amounts to rape.
Prostitution is illegal in Durham, so if the kids offered to pay the strippers for sex, they committed a crime. Then again, so did the strippers for offering/accepting such a proposal. If I sell you marijuana, and you pay me in monopoly money, do you seriously think I have a reasonable expectation of police assistance in recovery? Do I then have the right to accuse you of assaulting me, simply because, while engaged in criminal activity, I failed to benefit? Come on man, you act like these girls are saints.
With forensic evidence, rape is actually relatively easy to prove. Vaginal bruising, hair, fluid, a myriad of evidenciary possibilities exist in proving a rape (and yes, some still go unsolved). However, NONE of that evidence was present in this case, NONE. You suggest she was taken advantage of, I suggest she saw a possibility to make some extra cash (if sex happened at all), and did her thing, which I condend whole-heartedly is her right (afterall, it's her body, not mine or the government's). HOWEVER, that business is ILLEGAL, and so if she got stiffed for her money, she has to accept the fact that she got screwed (metaphorically this time), and move on. She does not have the right to falsely accuse the kids of RAPE. Notice she didn't accuse them of soliciting prostitution, why? Could it be because that were make HER criminally culpable too?
Rape requires the victim to have been unwilling or unable to consent. No evidence exists in the Duke case to indicate the accuser was unwilling or unable to consent to sex. IN FACT, given your own statements, she willingly engaged in sex in the hopes of earning some extra scratch. That's fine, but IT IS NOT RAPE.
You could not have missed my point more if you had your eyes closed. He apologized for the statement, and he should be forgiven, but the sentiment that created it still exists. A klansman who apologizes for calling a black man a monkey (though he wouldn't apologize, pretend he did) can be forgiven for his taboo statement, but he still hates black people, the sentiment is still there. That's my point. Jesse Jackson might have apologized for his comments, but the sentiment was still there. Don Imus has apologized countless times (though he shouldn't have, it was HUMOR), where's his forgiveness?
What evidence do you have of racism on my part? Give me a quote, from any of my posts, any post ever. You can't just hurl accusations around. This is paramount to the Duke argument: accusations do not mean anything without EVIDENCE.
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;44064 wrote:So if I understand you correctly, blacks are convicted more often of VIOLENT crime because of their skin color? Enlighten me.
No its because they commit more violent crimes
aaronssongs;47688 wrote:And I suppose you'd think that your comment wasn't "racist"?
Time and time again, you show yourself for who you really are...and it ain't pretty.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Crime and Justice Facts at a Glance
Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, more than half of those under sentence of death have been white.
Race and crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States
A February 1997 report on rape and sexual-based crime published by the United States Department of Justice stated that of the crimes surveyed, 56% of arrestees were "White", 42% were "Black", and 2% were of other races. The report additionally noted that "[v]ictims of rape were about evenly divided between whites and blacks; in about 88% of forcible rapes, the victim and offender were of the same race."[4]
A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were Black, 45.9% were White, and 2% were Other Races. Of the victims in those same crimes, 51% were White, 46.9% were Black, and 2.1% were Other Races. The report further noted that, "most murders are intraracial", with 86% of White murders committed by Whites, and 94% of Black murders committed by Blacks.[5] It should be noted that the document does not provide any details concerning what races or ethnicities are included in the designations "White", "Black", or "Other Races".
70% of prisoners in the United States are non-Whites.[6]
A 2005 United States Department of Justice report on violent crimes stated that of the "perceived race" of the offenders in single-offender violent crimes, 43.3% were White, 21.0% were Black, and 9.6% were "Other", with the remaining 26.0% of offenders of unknown race.[7]
Blacks are only 13% of the US population according to the CIA, and yet even by conservative measures commit 40% of the crime (using your figures). That is indicative of a unique proclivity towards violent crime my friend.
@Freeman15,
So Aaron, you're siding with the strippers because they were poor and black and they were taken advantage of by rich whites?
You would have these kids locked up for RAPE because they decided to watch some ladies take their clothes off and MAYBE have sex with them? How is that justice? But oh no, locking up black men for violent crimes is a signal of an inherently racist white-run system? Give me a break. You just plain don't like white people do you?
aaronssongs;47619 wrote:Most everything you say, reeks of racism...but since you've been doing it most of your life, you can't even see it.
The sky is green. I can make statements that sound authoritative too, but we require evidence in this country before we conclude a statement to be fact. Please, if I am the racist that you claim I am, produce evidence, which, based on your accusations, should be VERY easy to find.
aaronssongs;47718 wrote:The mere fact that you were so ready to dismiss any wrongdoing on the part of the white students involved in the Jena 6 case, and call for almost "the death penalty" for the black students...indicates that you are absolutely "racist", by definition. Futhermore, you didn't think that the hanging of nooses was not even reprehensible, let alone a "hate crime", and "protected under the 1st Amendment", no less. Need I go on?
Take a poll.....surely there are others, here, who would view your many outrageous statements as clearly, "racist remarks".
And word to the wise.....to "sound authoritative, you would have to stand on "solid ground", meaning, "factual evidence"...and as we all know, what you project is, mostly, empty, emotional rhetoric.
I clearly must have "touched a nerve", for you to react so strongly...methinks you doth protest too much. If there's no fire, why so much "smoke"? Hmmm?
Ok. I never excused the white students of wrongdoing, I excused them of conclusively demonstrable criminal culpability, and yes, there is a difference. I called for harsh sentencing of Bell and Bailey because they have violent histories and had been involved in violent incidents with whites THAT SAME WEEK, the other four I never discussed punishments.
"Hate Crimes" are unconstitutional sir because they criminalize thought and speech. If you kill a man because he is Chinese, you go to prison for murdering a man, you cannot LEGALLY be imprisoned for your rationale.
You didn't touch a nerve, I just wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself before I reported the accusation as abuse. I presume innocence, like we're supposed to.
aaronssongs;47722 wrote:Gobbledygook, par usual. You don't even know what you have posted...now you doublespeak....typical Republican
What part of that was doublespeak? What part was not factual? What part of LIBERTARIAN is hard to understand (ie, NOT a Republican)?
aaronssongs;47726 wrote:Libertarian, Schmiberatarian....who gives a rat's booty? I know I don't.
You didn't answer the questions Aaron. What wasn't factual? What was doublespeak?
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;47719 wrote:Ok. I never excused the white students of wrongdoing, I excused them of conclusively demonstrable criminal culpability, and yes, there is a difference. I called for harsh sentencing of Bell and Bailey because they have violent histories and had been involved in violent incidents with whites THAT SAME WEEK, the other four I never discussed punishments.
"Hate Crimes" are unconstitutional sir because they criminalize thought and speech. If you kill a man because he is Chinese, you go to prison for murdering a man, you cannot LEGALLY be imprisoned for your rationale.
You didn't touch a nerve, I just wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself before I reported the accusation as abuse. I presume innocence, like we're supposed to.
What part of this was not factual? What part of this was doublespeak? You quoted it when you made your comments, clearly you see something wrong with it. Specifically, what mistakes did I make?
aaronssongs;47734 wrote:I am not your "whipping boy"....I stand by what I said. Don't like it, sue me.
It's not that I "don't like it", it's that I like to correct mistakes if and when I make them. What was wrong with it?
aaronssongs;47734 wrote:I am not your "whipping boy"....I stand by what I said. Don't like it, sue me.
i'm sick of it already, and so is everyone else.
it' been nice aaron, but this is #4, and permanent.
@aaronssongs,
he black man that beat you down, would be in jail......with a big smile on his face!
More proof in what us "racist whites" have been pointing out.
@briansol,
briansol;47740 wrote:i'm sick of it already, and so is everyone else.
it' been nice aaron, but this is #4, and permanent.
is that what aaron was banned for ?
