New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time
- 01-31-2013, 08:30 AM
- 01-31-2013, 08:37 AM
- 01-31-2013, 08:58 AM
Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time
Some fun reading
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
You know ax1, jim, southpaw, and tex all had naked chicks sitting next to them last night while they were all flaming on each other.
chick : can we go to bed now, I want to have sex.
Guys : No! Im about to burn this guy good, just 12 more posts till I lead him into my trap.
Bigcountry's Getting a little smaller: Epi/Stano Log
If you didn't know what you were getting into... you seem to be the one playing ignorant here.
Your idea of telling your CO to do his **** when ordering you to really makes me laugh.
All my years, I have never seen a Marine cry so much.
And yes, my historic/ancient POV is all of 4 years old. You must be fighting your battles with pens and unicorns by now.
The Historic PES Legend
The bill of rights is a document, its intent is to protect individual civil liberties and for other US law to be checked against it. Jefferson was a man whose actions directly increased slavery, thereby decreasing civil liberty significantly.
You and Jim were having some argument where evidently quoting the origins of the USA equaled a credible source. Jim quoted a document (not its author) intended to check current and future American law against, one that would go on to be admired by the world at large with few exceptions and that everybody in America is happy to have and too many have died for. All the facts in the world about the Madison, Virginia in the late 1780's or anything else will be irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
You quoted a wealthy, slave owning president who directly spread the institution of slavery using US government money and spent like six pages arguing why Jefferson is a better source for a subjective discussion than the Bill of Rights and usually out of context, with the incorrect application or by editing replies to your liking.
If that is kicking chairs, you absolutely win and you can have it.
On the other hand, Jim's point was backed by a more credible piece of history than yours. But you still win, don't worry. Especially if one believes in the the institution of slavery over innate individual liberty because of course Jefferson would be a much better source in this event.
But I suppose you can agree to disagree as a matter of principles and get back to the original argument now.
And for the record, I have a hard time believing you actually put so much stock in to higher education, unless you actually are studying journalism. The only way you'd make it through even your basic undergrad courses is if you are going for an accredited bull****ter degree, which really cheapens legitimate programs that share a roof with such bull****, kinda like putting journalists on level with surgeons. Or maybe you are at a ****ty school or got lucky with professors heavily favoring multiple choice over essay or short answer tests.
Or, more likely, you are a bored, lonely, generally underperforming individual and living a meager existence where the only real challenge you can give yourself is intentionally stirred up **** on the internet and you are failing here too, unless the stirring itself is the goal.
There is no way you can actually believe you are "winning" anything but semantics, which no one else is interested in anyways.
Unfortunately individual people (Jefferson for one) chose not to apply its charges to all people, however this doesn't change the content of the document, which JimBuick was referencing.
With that in mind, your copy paste job is irrelevent completely. It's just the same recycled garbage from last night.
Jim was discussing the bill of rights, not the constitution of today, yesteryear and every where in between, not Madison, Not 1780 Virginia, not anhy other diatribe you felt like soap boxing.
While interesting and factual, your tangents are simply off topic and irrelevent.
Lol no one held a gun to my head... but if you think there was full disclosure upon signing up, you're dumber than I thought. And you know that we both aren't talking about the same disclosure. I could care less about the harsh realities of being a boot, in fact I agree with them. A certain level of discipline and training must take place. There is however a method to the madness. A well forgotten saying in todays time. There are other, probably more destructive problems within' the enlisted ranks.
My idea of telling the CO to do that is a fair and accurate response. Something that most would probably say. You're the type of marine who would willfully bend over and let yourself get ****ed in the ass. Ignorant to your own rights... not even as a citizen, but as a human being.
Lol and in all the years you were in, you never once encountered any problems?
You consider this crying? no bitch, no tears are being shed. It's simply me, pointing out the truths in the situation, something that is rarely done. You of all people should realize how much can change in 4 years.
Just throwing out a recent example of change... last year, it was unheard of that women would be allowed in combat situations, not to say they don't get engaged, but to be a part of a line company... no. It was introduced, and to everyones expectations, it wouldn't get far. however it did, and it's happening.
Now that's a BIG change to occur, if we bring that back down to a battalion, company, platoon level... you get met with changes constantly.
Tangents aside, if we're discussing the Bill of Rights, I've already stated (with the direct wording/articles to support my points). The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change it . Now if you're as smart as you purport yourself to be, rather than attacking me (weak FYI) you'd attack the substance of my post, which again is direct wording (not interpretations as you so often seem to do) describing the intentions of the Bill of the Rights, when it was initially drafted. All the information you need is provided above. And here's the cool part. It's not my wording, nor is it my opinion.
By the way, the sky is blue, grass is green and trees often house birds. Jefferson owned property under the sky, full of grass and containing trees he most likely propagated so these are all elements of the institution of slavery by default.
Substitute Madison for Jefferson and we have another interesting point. In your mind, because the bill of rights was introduced by Madison and Madison owned slaves, the bill of rights itself is connected to slavery in the same way that a man who leveraged personal power to increase slavery directly is connected to slavery. Complete bull**** but whatever. By tying the bill of rights and Jefferson's direct presidential charges together in your mind, and then discrediting the bill of rights, you have also discredited your own "on par" source or at the very least given Jim's the same credibility you give your own (sad).
Your facts are off topic, your logic within your own off topic argument is now circular and your deductive reasoning skills are at about a third grade level. This has simply gotten ridiculous.
Women served in combat roles well before you know. Plus, the Combat Exclusion Policy really had no bearing on women actually seeing combat it both theaters.
No sense in carrying on.
The Historic PES Legend
Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
Regarding spelling, I'm on a phone and typos happen. I earned an MBA from a top tier university and quit school to make money. Had a doctorate in my field come with a bigger price tag, I would've pursued that too but it doesn't so I didn't. You can attack typos all day long but I promise it won't mean much to me.
You, on the other hand, are still off topic and consequently irrelevant.
A document that doesn't once mention slavery vs. a man who directly expanded the institution is the discussion. You are off base.
I can see you will hold your bull**** tie-in in your mind though and if you have come to that point fine, but you know it's bull**** too. You are trying to win an argument that can't be won on topic for you. I've been sitting in the sensible boarding station next to the foolish station watching you sprint down the dumbass tracks for quite a while now.
Show me where, in the bill of rights (the point of discussion), slavery is supported.
It's sad to see people like you, clearly brainwashed acting as if there is nothing wrong, but hey no problem, I only got a little bit of time left, finish out this deployment, sit in RBE and get some college done and be on my way. Meanwhile if anyone has any questions about what it's really like, or whether or not it's a good choice for them, ill be glad to answer them... with zero bias.
I am actually curious to see how many here would go ahead and polish up their CO's footwear. We know you would because you're all about that life.
OH and don't spin this like i'm ****ting on the enlisted of today by demeaning or bringing shame to the marine corp. I do my job, and I do it well. I very well respect people left and right of me, and certain individuals who have demonstrated the qualities and capabilities of a leader... But there is a lot I do not respect, and do not agree with, and I can vouch for probably 70% of my battalion/company as they would agree with me.