Re: Where are Sharpton and Jackson apologizing to the Duke players.....

"gumboman" <dontemailme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What makes you assume that was not the real dad's first reactions?

Have any of the dad's said anything similar to what I am saying?

How should I know? Do I know their dads?

I've already said they shouldn't have been falsely accused. No one
should. However, had they not put themselves in that position they
wouldn't have had to worry about that now would they?

Doesn't that go without saying? And if the stripper hadn't issued false
charges and then lied to support them this would't be a story, either. All
these things are true and go without saying. So what, exactly, is your
point?

You say these kids were about what you expected. Isn't that Angela's
larger point that you have failed to address despite numerous chances
and despite saying some pretty nasty things about her (and Laurie).

You have GOT to be fucking kidding. I'm not even going to respond to your
bull***. I haven't failed to address anything. If you think that I have
then you obviously can't read. And as far as saying nasty things to
anybody, do yourself a big favor big man and don't get me started.


Why is it that we aren't surprised that in the year 2007 the so-called
'best, brightest and most priveleged' of this generation haven't
learned a thing from the past?

Because we live in a flawed country that exists in a flawed world.

Next question.

Isn't that what women for the last 40 years have been trying to get
across to society, that the future HAS to be different than the past?

Jack, what is your fucking point? A lot of people have been trying to get a
lot of things across to a lot of other people since the dawn of time, yet we
still have war & hatred. I am really, earnestly, honestly, and very
sincerely trying to understand your point. Do you want me to say that jock
culture is a mess and needs to enter rehab? OK, jock culture is a mess and
needs to enter rehab.

Now, go bother Angela & Laurie for their talking out their asses about a
case they OBVIOUSLY knew little about yet felt they should post opinoins as
facts, anyway.

I haven't seen anyone say it's OK for those kids (or anyone else) to
be falsely accused yet that was never the point to begin with and in
every response you seem to suggest that this is what others are
saying.

I give. I'm too fagged out to continue.

But that's the point - not everyone is addressing the issue from your
perspective. In terms of the unfairness everyone agrees you are
correct. You can't seem to come to terms with the idea that it is no
longer acceptable for 'boys to be boys'. Or, at least that's the way I
read what you are saying.

Then you're reading too much into it. I have never, in ANY posts, indicated
support or acceptance for the idea of well to do Duke lacrosse players
getting black strippers (who were also townies and I hope you understand why
that makes it an even dumber idea?) over to the lacrosse house. I have not
discussed this point because it seems an obvious given.

You have brought up Kobe on a number of occasions. What do you think
made him think that if he walked around putting his *** into
everything he could find, just because he could, that he eventually
wouldn't get caught up in that predicament. ***, it seems to me it
was inevitable.

Why are you asking me? Am I Kobe? You seem to ask me an awful lot of
questions that you'd be better off asking the principals. I am mearly
pointing to the fact that Kobe was railroaded. I am not drawing any
conclusions about his decision making capabilities at the time. (I suppose
he's a little smarter by now).

I remember at the time my thought was obvious. In fact, I posted it right
here. I said, "how dumb can you get? If you are as rich & famous as Kobe
you take five or six women into the bedroom with you, you never take just
one." Why did I say that? Because five or six are not going to line up
against you unless you are truly guilty. But being rich & famous and going
into a room alone with one girl is asking for a lawsuit.

Note to Laurie and Angela: before you get all high & mighty about my
paragraph above, do some basic research. It is a documented fact that NBA
players are followed by large numbers of women in ever city. Most just want
to *** them, but some are looking for a payday. I know it's hard to
swallow but it's true.

So... if you are a famous NBA player you are a FOOL to go into a room with
just one (or two) women. It is much smarter to take five.

1. you're making some mighty big assumptions here.
Possibly.

No. You ARE.


2, I see no reason to discuss 2nd base when we're still stuck running to
1st.
Personally, I don't even know where you've got first base located.

I'm sorry the example is so hard to follow.

To what, exactly, are you trying to get others to agree that would
constitute reaching first base. That they were apparently falsely
accused - agree. That this shouldn't happen - agree.

I'm not trying to get anyone to agree to anything. This ain't a public
opinoin poll it's a newsgroup. Mainly, I was just busy countering Angela's
& Laurie's nonsense.

That boys should be able to be boys and have a little fun at the expense
of others less fortunate than themselves in the year 2007 - disagree.

You can make all the stupid assumptions you want.


Personally, I think it wasn't 1. might have been 2, or 3, or some
combination of both. Before I ventured to tag it either 2 or 3,
I'llprolly
try and hunt down that Ed Bradley 60 mins interview to see what the 2nd
stripper said about the lacrosse player's behavior (attitudes, verbal &
physical actions, etc.) the night that all of this happened.

I assume you think that Angela and Laurie are asserting it is #2
without the appropriate facts.

OK, I'm fagged out again. But I'll give it one more try.

What do I fucking say up there Jack? What do I fucking say?

I say that even I figure iy might have been #2.

What is the probability of "might have been, Jack? Do you know the
probability of might have been? I'll give you the probability of might have
been. It is 50%, maybe more. 50% Jack. Perhaps even more. Toss a coin,
flip a burger, see which side shows up. Do you have a problem with me
thiking it's prolly 50/50 that the kids acted like dicks? If so, it's your
problem.

Laurie asserts that a date rape drug was given. She also assume that a rape
occurred. Oh, and by the way, she also assumes that lacrosse player #3 knows
who did the rape and is covering up for them.

Angela? Angels asserts a lot of things. Most of them make me smile. Some
make me laugh. Others are too stupid and biased to even deal with so I
usually ignore them.


Do you seriously think that girl goes home to parents like you? I'm
having
a hard time understanding your main points.

Actually, that's exactly my point. I know that girl doesn't but I
assume a lot of those boys do. As the more privileged members of our
society what responsibility do we have to see that our sons/daughters
don't engage in this type of behavior no matter whether it can be
proven in a court of law or not. After everything we've argued about,
agreed on, etc. do you actually think that I would be worried if your
son came to my house to pick up one of my daughters that he would pull
out a broomstick as a sexual toy? Of course not. But I can tell you
for a fact I distrusted on first sight a lot more boys than I trusted
and that says something about all of us and what kind of society we're
building. And if I'm that distrustful how should many women feel who
have endured centuries of patriarchal societies?

Well since you still seem to feel I'm one of the good guys, I have trouble
understanding why you are telling me all of this?

Opps! Scrath the sentence above. I just read your very last sentence in
this post. OK, since you obviously feel that I'm now one of the bad guys, I
still have trouble understanding why you are telling me all of this?

Once again, go tell the people you feel have this problem. If you think I'm
one of them fine, but I would submit that - at least right now and at least
for MY posts - your vision is clouded by your politics.

If you think that I have said anything whatsoever to condone stupid jock
behavior then you really don't know me. Let me share something with you:
The university my oldest attends has fraternities. Do you know the percent
of undergrads that are fraternity members? 8%. Yes, I said EIGHT percent.
That's up a percent too, I remember when he started it was 7%. Percent of
undergrads that are surfers: 78%. Percent that identify themselves as ocean
enthusiasts & ocean conservationists: 91%. It ain't Duke.


We're looking at a crime. It
involves some kids who, other than their ages and the factthat they are in
college, have little in common with my kids, and I doubt much in common
with
yours.
OK, then are we the minority? If so, how can that be in the year 2007?

Why are you asking me?

Or, are we in the majority and these kids were simply out of the
mainstream. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen with mine, I don't
think this is the case. I think we're definitely in the minority.

Could be. Sad to see the "hippie generation turn into corporate fuks who
care only about money, status and power but ain't that America.


to me at *this* stage in the disscussion. Maybe later. Again, I need to
get past the nonsense first.

What nonsense? That they may have been falsely accused of the actual
rape? They certainly weren't falsely accused of piss poor judgment.

Angela's usual nonsense. Why don't you go and debate her about her
ridiculous statement that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of men see nothing wrong
with forcing themselves upon a woman?

Then, after Angela has kicked your ass, go argue with Laurie for some
INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH NONSENSE. I gotta hand it to ya Jack, you sure know how
to ick your allies. With those two you can't lose! They will just close
their eyes and repeat the same CRAP over & over again, ad nauseum, knowing
full well they are dead wrong, yet feeling so strongly they are absolutely
right.


Agreed. However, I like to get the known facts straight before coming to
the lesson part. At least in this case. I haven't really bothered much
with the Imus case. I don't think Imus should be fired, I do think he has
shown contrition and therefore deserves a second chance.

He'll get a second chance for sure. And probably at a lot more money.
He'll go on Sirius or something and never miss a beat. But Imus, like
those fortunate enough to attend Duke, should be setting the example
for appropriate behavior, not engaging in 'boys will be boys hijinks'.

Imus is Imus, why should he set an example for anyone? Just because you
want him to? So you "wish" everybody would act a certain way, and then when
they don't you get pissed at ME because I don't share your outrage?

At this point it's approrpriate to repeat one of my mother's sayings; And
by the way, mom was all gurl. 100% All-American farm gurl, moved to the big
city during the Great Depression with just pennies in her purse. A woman
who bore 3 sons and yet still never sported more than a 26 inch waist, she
went out dancing right up until the day she died. And she always had the
guts to stand up to the cops.

She used to say, "go ahead, wish in one hand and *** in the other, then
look at both hands and see which you got more of." In other words, the
world ain't changing just because you want it to.

If you want to do something about American society having its head up its
ass, by all means go out and do something. Personally, I'd rather go
fishing...


I've probably listened to Imus more than most since he's been on
MSNBC, from lack of other choices more than anything else and I agree
he does some good things, particularly with veterans. However, lots of
people don't like him and some of the characters he surrounds himself
with are atrocious. It's locker room bull*** at its worst. What they
said about those girls should not have been said on the public
airwaves. If he wants to do that type of show let him go to private
radio. And his case sets the example for all the rest like him that
inhabit the public airspace.

Agreed. However, I still think he was trying to show how "hip" he was. And
that is not my theory, it was advanced by a female African American
columnist at the Chgo Sun Times.


Those two basically had nothing to do with it. There isn't enough
purchasing power in the black community to affect the corporations in
that way. The corporations actually ran the risk of a backlash from
other whites who would think in a manner similar to you. Their data
must have been pretty conclusive that there were a lot more people out
there than just supporters of Jackson and Sharpton who thought this
was wrong. The bottom line with those corps doesn't have anything to
do with blacks, whites, Jews or anyone else - it's all about the
greenbacks. If they had thought their sales wouldn't have been harmed
by their continued support of Imus then he'd still be on the air. It's
really as simple as that.

That may be true. It does not negate the fact that BOTH Jackson and
Shartpton are caricatures.


LOL! Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but if you're talking about my
contributions I'll say exactly what I said to Angela last night, "project
much?"

In this case no one has to project. The words are there for all to
see.

*** you, Jack.

=======================================
Better bring your own redemption when you come
To the barricades of heaven, where I'm from
Jackson Browne



.

Loading