Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 247
1
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: October 2, 2014, 12:10 AM »
It could be worse: We could be Florida State. They may get a climate change and evolution skeptic and political hack as their next president:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/09/florida_state_university_president_john_thrasher_is_he_unqualified_for_his.html

Seriously: Jameis Winston and an evolution skeptic. I know we don't have much room to be critical, but this would be demoralizing if I were an alum. The good news is, Kid may be off to the Florida State forums.


Pretty sleazy Tim. But I've come to expect this from you. I first saw this trick with Chris Matthews, but you've done this before. Conflating evolution and tobacco denial with climate change skepticism. It shows weakness and desperation in the climate change movement, not strength enough to stand on its own feet. But the left will continue to benefit from the "horrors" of things like fracking. While State College has banned fracking, they're certainly willing to take Terry Pegula's money. The left can't survive without  handouts, unable to survive without government jobs or largesse, grants, subsidized loans, and foundations and universities funded with industrial fortunes to provide their paychecks.

Still backing Piketty and his Marxist philosophy? Guess you didn't get the memo of socialist's implementation and annihilation of hundreds of millions of people, from instituting its 'equality.'  Often you've put up links about that psychologist who says conservatives and liberals think differently, and that conservatives will look at something negative, becoming fascinated, while liberals will not, but rather have no interest after a few seconds. It's easy so see why, and he may be right. Liberal/socialist policies have been so destructive, that liberals would rather avert their gaze than face the damage they caused by their actions.

2
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 30, 2014, 11:24 PM »
I've done a marathon and seeing the leaders of the race so far ahead of you can be a bit demotivating. I had a very good per minute mile (8:06) and still lost to those people by over an hour.

Wow, you did run a good time. I might have lost by an hour to them even using a bike.

3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 24, 2014, 04:34 PM »
I suppose you have a problem with blacks in the South not being given legal representation and being convicted in kangaroo courts, often resulting in lynching. I see little difference in this matter. What surprises me is that you do.

Stop being an incessant troll.
Hey, I posted a video. You questioned it. I think I supported it with facts, stats. Sorry they run counter your beliefs.

Stop insinuating that I'd move for black people to be lynched and for people to be tried and convicted without full due process. That's what makes you a troll. I can counter your point if you can at least be civil, which is really contrary to everything you know as being a poster on this forum.

I am not insinuating you are for lynching black people without a trial. I am also stating that colleges are acting in a similar manner by convicting male students without full due process. The person's skin color shouldn't matter, nor should gender. If you believe colleges can prosecute male students internally without a lawyer present, and without due process, I see little difference. It's just modern day lynching. I'm not using race as a separator. You may be, but I'm not. I'm using due process for "individuals". With the Jim Crow situation in the South, blacks were convicted based on race. On college campuses today, males are convicted based on their sex. It's still discriminatory.

Regarding "trolling", here's what wiki says.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.


Maybe I start more controversial subjects, like AGW. But on economics? Marxist philosophy was the basis used to great extent in the 20th century, and supported by many Americans, people like Walter Duranty of the NY Times(a Stalin admirer) J.K. Galbraith(a Mao and Soviet admirer) and someone like Arthur Miller(a Castro admirer). On the contrary, I view the socialist experiments as impoverishing at best, deadly at worst. What killed more people in the 20th century than socialism/communism? Pol Pot's "Kampuchea" was recognized by the UN, for goodness sakes. So, when I read Piketty posts, am I the one posting inflammatory statements or sowing discord? Or is the poster supporting such views? The last Piketty post, he was quoted as saying, "Marx didn't go far enough", and on NPR last week, someone being interviewed re the book stated, "Marx was right after all." I view this as dangerous. Makes one see how right Stalin was when he termed people like this, "useful idiots." And while many don't want to be called socialists(including Piketty) or communists, what is one to think if they espouse Marxist doctrine and socialist philosophy? Naomi Klein's(AGW supporter and writer) is calling for an end to capitalism, and global socialism. Her work is incoherent, almost circular. At least what I've read.

Politics and economics, from my perspective, are blood sports. One needs to be prepared. On the 97% for AGW, this is complete rubbish. I posted the pdf on each "method" of arriving at this. On the 1 in 5 women assaulted, this is laughable. Think about it, using Ohio State. Look at these numbers:

reported OSU assaults  Number of female students   1 in 5 would be
2009-2012
98                                  28,000                            5,600 female students supposedly assaulted.

Do you really believe 5,600 assaults were committed and only 98 reported? So, why is this done? Female votes. Once again, I believe in individual rights, not group rights. As a group, males are discriminated against, like blacks were in the Jim Crow south. Maybe to a different degree, but nonetheless, it's their sex which makes them guilty, as it was the skin color which made blacks guilty. Look at the Duke prof who gave two "F's" to lacrosse players, saying they were "accomplices to rape". If that's not discriminatory on the basis of sex, what is it?

4
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:09 AM »
Just saw a 3 part series, based on a true story, "Burning Bush". Produced by HBO Europe, it's in Czech, with subtitles. In 1968, Czechoslovakia experienced liberalization, what became known as the "Prague Spring". The Soviets crushed it, and replaced the government, removing Alexander Dubcek. 6 months or so later Jan Palach, a Czech student, set himself on fire, in a self immolation. His note suggested more to come. They called themselves "torches", protesting Soviet occupation. It's a great story, highly recommended.

While the whole thing is great, there is a line which demonstrates how the rulers of societies like this often think. It's Machiavellian, known as "effectual truth", which Machiavelli wrote of in "The Prince". When a politician who lied under oath is asked, "why did you lie"? He answers, "I'm a politician, and anything that serves the state is the truth".  These days, it's more commonly known as the ends justifying the means. We see this kind of thinking in this country.

This is really a great, tragic, heartbreaking story, but demonstrates the spirit and determination of people living in such conditions, under such oppressive but often subtle rule.  But 20 years after his death, his picture and memory was used to collapse the government. I love films about the human condition. A bit over 3 hours for all 3, but well worth it. This is a good one. Check out the trailer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2280344/?ref_=nv_sr_1

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:50 PM »
I suppose you have a problem with blacks in the South not being given legal representation and being convicted in kangaroo courts, often resulting in lynching. I see little difference in this matter. What surprises me is that you do.

Stop being an incessant troll.
Hey, I posted a video. You questioned it. I think I supported it with facts, stats. Sorry they run counter your beliefs.

6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:35 PM »
The facts, real ones, on campus assaults. What's amazing about this is that even if you use WH numbers, they are way, way off. For example, from 2009-2012, Ohio State had reported 98 sexual assaults. But the WH says only 12% are reported, so simple math, 98/.12 would yield 817 total assaults, 98 reported, 719 unreported. But that's only 2.9% of the female population, not 20%. And how TF does anyone know the "unreported" figure? It's fabricated. Total BS. Of the actual 28,000 females, there were 98 reported incidents over 4 years. This is still a high number. Sweden had the highest rate in Europe, with 69 reported cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, but that counts men and women. So, 69 cases per 50,000 women. But OSU had 98 reported cases on 28,000 over 4 years, or 24.5 per year. To equate it to Sweden(hope this isn't too much for you Geno), 50,000 is 1.79 X 28,000, so multiply 24.5 X 1.79 and you get 43.86 cases per year per 50,000 females. Yes, bad, but 1 in 5? Absurd on its face. Laughably wrong. I don't understand how supposedly smart people can be so gullible. For 2012, the 52% of admitted PSU applicants had math SAT scores of 560(25th percentile) to 670(75th percentile). I can't imagine these numbers are too difficult for anyone in that group, at least those above 600, unless they're blinded by an agenda. These are simple stats to work with.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/05/using-white-house-claim-of-under-reporting-only-1-in-36-women-at-ohio-state-are-sexually-assaulted-not-1-in-5/

7
OT / Re: OT - Music Thread
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:06 PM »
I was ambivalent towards Phish until a restaurant that I was working part time was laid wasted by their fans. Hagar the Horrible had better manners and Pig Pen from Peanuts had better hygiene. I actually closed down after they left so we could clean the dining area and restrooms. Rumor around town was that their fans caused so many problems at their second show that Phish was blacklisted by the BJC

I was a Dead Head, and their fans weren't any better. And Stones fans? People got killed at their concert. Allman Brothers? I saw the Dead and The Allman Bros. at RFK Stadium many moons ago(the 70's) and there were dozens of people running around naked. I think half the crowd was tripping. Phish sells tons of tickets. Remind me of The Dead in many ways. Yes, they certainly have the drug crowd. I haven't seen them live. But it's a catchy tune, hygiene of their fans notwithstanding.

8
OT / Re: OT - Music Thread
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:24 PM »
Anyone here this number from Phish's new album? The Line. Catchy. lead guitarist Trey Attanasio and I have something in common. Vermonters busted for speeding in Whitehall, NY. He had weed, unfortunately, and got in a bit more trouble.

Phish - New Song Release - "The Line"


My wife tells me this is the new hot group, Lake St. Drive. One of weirdest band instrument groupings, stand up bass, trumpet and limited drum set. But this singer has real pipes. Seeing them in Burlington in November.  Anyone hear of them? Doing Hall and Oates, Rich Girl, literally in a garage, with fans on the sidewalk.

Lake Street Dive - Rich Girl (Live @Pickathon 2013)



9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:16 PM »
"To prove that sexual assault/rape isn't an issue on college campuses I'm going to hold up a situation littered with prosecutorial misconduct and evidence tampering to prove my point." KC

Men never feel trapped? Men never feel pressure? Enough of this feminist BS.

I don't know if you know this but men are generally stronger than women. It's not a feminist viewpoint to acknowledge that women are in different sexual situations than men are. I just want to reiterate, the only 1 in 5 statistic that I have seen is women who have been sexually assaulted/raped and were subjected to an attempted sexual assault/rape. The 1 in 5 statistic, as far as I'm aware, is NOT saying that these women have been sexually assaulted or raped. It also includes attempted in there as well. Now, maybe the stats are off, maybe it's as off as you say it is, but if you want to challenge it, then do some research or better yet, find one that says it's false.

But to accuse me of not thinking independently and just going along with the norm, when you are holding an outdated viewpoint on sex is nothing short of astounding. It'd be like having a conversation with someone who thinks that concussions aren't a big deal and saying that head trauma isn't an issue for football players.

Using your views, you were probably with the 200+ faculty at Duke who convicted the Duke lacrosse players. Judge, jury, executioner maybe for you, not for me.

How?

I like that quote.  Next time I'm accused of not being PC enough, I'm going to break that out.

It was really spectacular.

Damn feminist liberal climatology professors just ruining this country with their stats and research!

Aren't they the worst, trying to get people to think about some of the largest issues on college campuses today and can talk about climate change as well?

Do some research? Fine. How many were reported to police? Let's say PSU has 1,000 assaults or attempted sexual assaults. Why not go to police? Why is this handled internally and no legal representation is permitted for the accused? And what evidence do you have? Flimsy at best. BTW, I once posted a piece, probably 30 pages, a pdf, which covered all 4 of the supposed "97%" consensus surveys/reports, etc. In each case, it was demonstrated that all of them were baloney. One(going from memory) sent out 3,000 surveys, got something like 1,100 back, and chose to use only 77, who they claimed were "climate scientists". Of the 77, 75(97%) agreed on climate change. But it begged the question, "why send out 3,000 surveys if you're only going to use 77? Nobody here read it, as they've already made up their minds. The left usually has no interest in fact, but agendas.

You have no evidence of the 1 in 5 number, do you? These are wild estimates. How many assaults at your school have been reported to police? And please don't compare this to something like head injuries in football. Re football, there's years of evidence of former players with serious injuries. I'm surprised you didn't use tobacco deniers, which is the usual trick. On this college sexual assault issue, it's men who are unfairly treated. They are allowed zero legal representation and are accused and convicted(by being thrown out of school) with scant evidence. The deck is stacked against them. If these cases were so strong, why can't these panels handle attorneys for the accused? The answer is clear. There is no possiblity of these men, in probably 95% of the cases, of being convicted if given an attorney or their day in court. These cases are so weak, they cannot withstand scrutiny and sunshine.  I am not condoning rape or sexual assault. I'm defending individual rights against false charges. Do you know in the Duke lacrosse case, a teacher gave two students of the team an "F" on the paper, accusing them of being "accomplices to rape"? This is what passes for justice on college campuses.  I mean, WTF? Duke had to pony up $18 million to settle those false charge cases. Those 88 profs should have been fired. In this country, it used to be "innocent until proven guilty", and defendants deserve an attorney. This is why colleges don't want attorneys present. In many cases, their charges are total BS, like the Duke case. 

I suppose you have a problem with blacks in the South not being given legal representation and being convicted in kangaroo courts, often resulting in lynching. I see little difference in this matter. What surprises me is that you do.

If you think about it, if there are 1,000 reports at PSU annually, and my guess is, less than 10 reported to law enforcement annually, isn't that a problem?

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:14 AM »
rwd5035, this is the guy who not only stood up for the Duke lacrosse players, but wrote a book and had a blog on it for several years. BTW, Duke settled for $18 million with the lacrosse players.(this is why colleges won't allow legal representation to be present at these lynchings. They'd get killed.) It wasn't 200 faculty, but the "Group of 88". Anyway, in this wikipedia piece, this is an interesting line about his denial of tenure.

When Johnson went up for tenure, he was rejected on grounds of “lack of collegiality.”[7] In response, a group of twenty historians, spearheaded by the chairman of Harvard's history department, Akira Iriye, wrote a letter in which they declared that the denial of tenure to Johnson “reflects a ‘culture of mediocrity’ hostile to high academic standards....Introducing a redundant category of collegiality rewards young professors who ‘go along to get along’ rather than expressing independent scholarly judgement.” Such thinking, the professors wrote, “poses a grave threat to academic freedom, since the robust and unfettered exchange of ideas is central to the pursuit of truth.”[9]

If you can accuse me of 'extremism', can't I accuse you of "going along to get along, rather than expressing independent scholarly judgment"?

One prof at Duke got it right. You'd probably think of him as extreme. I view the 88 as extreme and dangerous. One prof gave two of her students an F on their final paper, as she said "they were accomplices to rape". There was an out of court settlement, and a grade change.

The faculty sparring had begun on October 24th, when chemistry professor Steven W. Baldwin wrote a letter to the university newspaper accusing Duke faculty of turning the lacrosse players into “pariahs” and saying that those professors should be “tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.”


11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:39 AM »
ou're telling me 4,000 are sexually assaulted in their 4 years there? Get serious, man.

I never said that. Though, I think anyone that thinks sexual assault isn't an issue on college campuses is living in a delusional world. Oddly, your stance comes after Obama supports a stand up to sexual assault/rape campaign. I'm sure if it was a Republican, you'd be saying something entirely different.

Hey, I've slept with women and regretted it afterwards. Did they rape me? Quite manufactured. Totally ridiculous.

No, that's not rape. It's about consenting at the time the events occurred. BTW, congratulations on having sex.

Have guys slept with women and never called them back? Of course. But that ain't rape.

No one said it was.

What do you mean a woman doesn't consent but goes along with it anyway? That is consent, unless she's drugged or drunk.

No, it's not. Which is where your misconception derives entirely from. College women especially can feel trapped in situations where men are expecting sex and don't consent and still have sex anyway. That's not consent. I don't think it's necessarily rape, I'm not sure what offense that exactly is but to think it's consent is 100% crazy.

Why don't we have 1 in 5 sexual assaults in the general population? Ever think of that? I mean, are campuses raping environments?

I'm not sure. The 1 in 5 statistic that I have seen is those who experience sexual assault/rape and experienced an attempt of sexual assault/rape. It's not 1 in 5 women have been raped, so no, approximately 4k women currently at PSU probably have not been raped and/or experienced an actual sexual assault.

The biggest problem for college campuses is reporting, given the ages of the parties involved, trying to learn how to live and what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Stop being an extremist and going so far to one side that makes you look completely insane.

To look at college campuses and not acknowledge that there is a problem of sexual assault/rape is completely bewildering to me though.

I'm extreme? People are saying 1 in 5 is assaulted is extreme and ridiculous. It's off by a factor of at least 20. You can't get more extreme. People believing 1 in 5 are insane or deluded, and extreme. And this "women feel trapped". Men never feel trapped? Men never feel pressure? Enough of this feminist BS. They want to be treated equally or not. They want sexual freedom or not? They want to be able to make their own choices, over their own bodies or not? They need to make up their minds. What's all the hullabaloo of getting free birth control about? To protect against assault?

One thing I didn't cover. If this is true, 1 in 5, or even anything close, what's with the lack of due process? Why is it acceptable to not be able to have legal representation for the male? This is the kind of stuff you see in places like Russia and Cuba. Males can be charged, and get no defense, and be thrown out of school without the female getting cross examined? Are you freakin' kidding me? Talk about extreme. And do you really want to be judged by people the likes of Tim Curley or Graham Spanier or Michael Mann? The atmosphere on college campuses is the closest thing one can get to totalitarianism in the US. Kangaroo courts. Lynch mobs. Free speech zones at PSU? Sorry, Buckley had it right:

“I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
 William F. Buckley, Jr. quotes (American Writer, b.1925)


Put my fate in those people's hands? To quote Cyrano de Bergerac, "No thank you, no thank you, no thank you." Colleges don't want males to get lawyers cause the lawyers would rip the charges to shreds.

Using your views, you were probably with the 200+ faculty at Duke who convicted the Duke lacrosse players. Judge, jury, executioner maybe for you, not for me.

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 22, 2014, 03:17 AM »
For those who believe in stats, like the 97% of climate scientists, the 1 in 5 rapes of women on college campuses must have you concerned, if not terrified. If you are parents of college bound daughters, there is a solution. Parents of boys as well, as apparently, their sons become rapists when they go to college. But boys don't matter, so let's stick to girls. Finally, there's a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ShuCkqHUQ

???

Yes, sexual assault/rape is a big problem on college campuses. I don't know how any sane individual could say otherwise. Now, I don't think there's an uptick in violent rapes, like the 1 in 5 number suggests (because when I think rape, I think of a man forcing a woman down and forcing himself upon her). What that number includes, I believe, is things like date rape, drunken sex and times where a woman doesn't consent but goes along with it anyway, and other things of that nature that I have not included.

To suggest that it isn't a problem though or that it's manufactured out of nothing is quite bewildering to me though, which is what I think you are doing, but you've done so inarticulately.

1 of 5 is absurd. What are there, 40,000 students at PSU? Let's say half women? You're telling me 4,000 are sexually assaulted in their 4 years there? Get serious, man. Hey, I've slept with women and regretted it afterwards. Did they rape me? Quite manufactured. Totally ridiculous. Have guys slept with women and never called them back? Of course. But that ain't rape. What happened to the women's sexual revolution? IMO, they can't make up their minds. BS.

What do you mean a woman doesn't consent but goes along with it anyway? That is consent, unless she's drugged or drunk. Let's say a drunk woman comes onto you. That hasn't happened to you? And that's rape? Please. There's an easy way to solve this. The legal system. But the cases are so flimsy that the colleges won't allow it. If this is such a rampant problem, why is it only like this on campuses and not in the general population? Why don't we have 1 in 5 sexual assaults in the general population? Ever think of that? I mean, are campuses raping environments?

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 20, 2014, 02:31 PM »
For those who believe in stats, like the 97% of climate scientists, the 1 in 5 rapes of women on college campuses must have you concerned, if not terrified. If you are parents of college bound daughters, there is a solution. Parents of boys as well, as apparently, their sons become rapists when they go to college. But boys don't matter, so let's stick to girls. Finally, there's a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ShuCkqHUQ

14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 20, 2014, 02:18 PM »
More on Thomas Frank. At least he doesn't seem too impressed with himself. This from his own web page. Has anyone ever been so conceited as to refer to themselves as "the most astute" of anything? Must have low self esteem in reality. Tim, you should do some of the psychoanalytical studies you often post on this guy, or those who say such things of themselves. I suppose it's more common than one thinks, you know, "I'm a better speech writer than my speechwriters, I'm a better policy analyst than my policy analysts, I'm a better political director than my political directors, I'm a better campaign director than my campaign director", yada yada. It must be so excruciating to be so smart like these people and everyone else so dumb. There's hardly time to fill out basketball brackets and do fund raisers, and attend parties and play golf. Who has time to get real work done, esp when the others just don't get it?

From the most astute political scoffer since H. L. Mencken, the definitive account of the conservative reign of misrule and corruption

And where does he promote his views? Well, some of the most mainstream outlets imaginable. Once again, from his own blog: He writes For Salon, and he's been interviewed or written for Bill Moyers, NPR's Fresh Air, Rachel Maddow and The Colbert Report. Those border on alternative media or underground media. The National Enquirer has better viewership.

15
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:55 PM »
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6291859/area-pundit-angry-at-political-science-for-proving-him-wrong


Some interesting points, but Thomas Frank is an easy target. He's nuts. The WSJ hired him for awhile, I suppose as a writer from the left. But he was crazy. It's been awhile, so I don't remember the details. But his columns bordered on hysteria. The writer of this piece is dead wrong. It may be true with Obama, but couldn't be more far off. And I wouldn't call what Obama's doing leadership, but avoidance of leadership. That's counterproductive. Think about it: Ukraine, avoid; Libya, ignore; Iran, avoid; Egypt, avoid; ISIS, do as little as possible. Don't defeat, obliterate, but degrade; Syria, draw red lines, then back off and say you didn't say it; China badgering their neighbors and violating sea treaties and law, avoid; Benghazi, stonewall; IRS, stonewall;NSA snooping, avoid. Where is Obama leading? Fundraising, sex on campus, LGBT rights. Interestingly, Obama is speaking in Garden City, NY next week, to raise funds for two Dem congressional candidates. Guess what? Neither candidate is going to show up. They're busy. That has to be a first in Presidential history. They want the money, as he does cause he wants them to win, but they don't want to be seen with him.

but the reality is presidential leadership is often counterproductive.


16
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:17 PM »
Another NFL player has been added to the Woman/Child beater list (Jonathan Dwyer).  But it's not all bad news on the NFL news pages.  We all know the Devon Still story by now.  But here is one I hadn't heard about before that is pretty good (even better for Ravens/Steelers fans):

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11543719/maake-kemoeatu-formerly-baltimore-ravens-donates-kidney-brother-chris-kemoeatu-formerly-pittsburgh-steelers


It isn't all bad news, you're right...but it's presented that way. Big money attracts attention.

 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/nfl-media-roger-goodell-111086.html#.VBqz-vldW-0

Nor is the NFL the sink of criminality you might assume by reading the headlines. Crunching the numbers, Benjamin Morris of FiveThirtyEight writes, “arrest rates among NFL players are quite low compared to national averages for men in their age range.” (Although domestic violence accounts for a disproportionate share of the arrests for violent crimes, according to Morris.)

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:44 PM »
WTF is going on? Students required to submit sexual history.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5923

18
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:28 PM »
And for the third time I've mentioned it, the NFL is saying that this is new evidence and deserves to increase his suspension. That's what the NFL is saying. It's clear you disagree, which is fine. I don't think it's cut and dry though.

Yes, but new evidence of what?   What does the video show that we do not already know?  He was suspended for punching his girlfriend.  The video showed him punching his girlfriend.  How does the video change anything?

...and that is without getting into the fact that there is evidence that the NFL already had the video when they initially suspended him.

The additional suspension came from the public outcry when the public saw the video.  But, how can you increase a guy's suspension without adding to his initial offense?  If they somehow find an audio tape of her screaming when Ray hits her, is the NFL justified in tacking on another 4 game suspension? 

New evidence, but no new offense.  How can they increase the penatly?

The part I don't get -- and I hope this isn't taken the wrong way -- is that the NFL has deemed a first time offense worth 6 games.  As far as the Rice incident goes -- and this is the part I hope isn't taken the wrong way -- that's pretty mild by domestic violence standards.  Sure he knocked her out with one punch -- and that's a horrible thing.  But compare that to the freshman RB at Oklahoma who broke a young lady's face in 4 places -- and he's still in school (though suspended from the team).  Unfortunately, broken bones and hospital visits is a common thing with domestic violence.  6 games?  You can tell by that the NFL wants these guys back on the field.  I think a year off with a bunch of community service is a better punishment.  But that will be tough to enforce if the victims keep defending the accused.  Ray Rice got punished because of the video plain and simple.  There was proof without needing witness.  Without that video?  He's still a Raven and has played two games -- and we aren't talking about the NFL problem.

Seems to me this is much better left to 1. the team and 2. the courts. If I'm an owner, and I have a clause in my contract about behavior, not necessarily illegal, but something like this, or drug use, anything, and the player signs it with legal advice, and I can cut him, so be it. After that, it seems like it's a court issue. Sure the league has an image to protect, but it shouldn't be extra legal. Now, in a panic, the league has hired 4-5 women to help on policy. This may be a mistake, but hopefully not. But what happens now if it's a he said/she said, and maybe a divorce involved? Is that a court issue, or a league issue?

I think Goodell has to go. In trying to save his own skin, he's panicking.

19
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:15 AM »
Goodell does not have absolute free reigns when it comes to personel issues.

According to? Goodell has the all controlling blanket of "actions undertaken for the best interests of football" in their CBA, as all commissioners do. Which gives him free reign to do things, like player suspensions.

Things like admissibility of evidence and double jeopardy don't apply to the NFL, they apply to courts and public entities.

As Kid pointed out, there are certain legal lines Goodell cannot cross, even as commissioner.

This is a business with a union, therefore there are certain legal areas where Goodell me run up against Fair Labor laws.  Unfair decisions on labor issues can be taken to mediation.

Just seems like a modern day lynching. I mean, OJ got a trial, for goodness sakes. I'm not sure why the black community isn't involved here. White men passing judgment on black men without trial? Sounds like Jim Crow if you ask me. Goodell is in some spot. He's got NOW breathing down his neck. Does feminism trump racism? If Goodell starts to get heat from the black community, what does he do, yield to them, or yield to feminists? If Rice hit and knocked out a man, would it be different? Do women get "extra rights"? Do they trump minority rights? Do they trump individual rights? Some juicy questions on this one.

This is why I hate group rights. People are people. Assault is assault. It shouldn't matter who the victim is, nor who the assaulter is, straight, gay, black, white, woman, man. The problem is, the left wants group rights, not individual rights. Kind of twists things into pretzels. You reap what you sow.

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 11:26 PM »
Suspension is one thing, but indefinite? Goodell  may be running up against employment law. Forget the union, not sure why the NAACP isn't all over this. I understand NOW is pressuring the NFL, but I'd like to see the NAACP involved. Where's Al Sharpton when you need him? Isn't the black unemployment rate high enough? IMO, this should go through the legal system, and the team has to abide by the contract. If this allows them an out, so be it. But to make him unemployable in the only profession in which he can make this kind of money seems illegal, NFL or not. IMO, the proper stance was to stay out of it, and let the courts handle it. If his fiance/wife doesn't press charges, what case is there?

Well, first addressing this last point, the fiance/wife often drop statements to police and the problem with DV cases is they turn into the attacker vs the police officer. Which prosecutors don't necessarily feel as comfortable about prosecuting, which is a damn shame imo. I wish and hope that more of these abusers will be in jail.

Is this an NAACP issue? I guess it could be but this isn't so obviously white vs black discrimination, at least to me anyway, maybe you feel differently.

I'm not sure what they'd be implicating here from an employment law standpoint but I'm not overly familiar with the area. My understanding is NFL players are employees at will, essentially at the will of their employers, but that claim would be against the Ravens, not the NFL, since the Ravens ultimately cut him.

It does appear the NFL is prepared to say that this is new evidence and will say that, I'm not sure how it can be regarded as such, nor am I sure as to why they aren't pursuing it under the best interests of football but I'm sure their counsel has more resources and knowledge of what's going on than I do.

I have no problem with the team cutting him. They must have clauses in their contracts. The problem I have is the league denying him the ability to offer his services to other teams. They may not want to hire him, and that's fine. But a league ban? Without this going through the legal system, seems outrageous. At will employee? How can that be, as they have a contract? I see it as discriminatory as he's been denied his rights. He happens to be black. There's a video, and it doesn't look good for him, but OJ Simpson got off, for goodness sakes, and he murdered two people. Whether he's white or black of course wouldn't matter. But he's black, and he's been discriminated against. How can you take a man's livelihood away without due process?

I am sure there are legal penalties for what he's done. Maybe jail. I don't know. But a NYC teacher wouldn't be fired for this. Before trial? NFW. The league should have stayed out of it, let the team cut him per their contract, and let the legal system run its course. Regarding him being black, how many white players have been banned from playing like this? And what about Ray Lewis? He drove the getaway car in a murder. But the legal system didn't convict, why should the league? They acted properly in that case. Not this one.

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:28 PM »
Goodell does not have absolute free reigns when it comes to personel issues.

According to? Goodell has the all controlling blanket of "actions undertaken for the best interests of football" in their CBA, as all commissioners do. Which gives him free reign to do things, like player suspensions.

Things like admissibility of evidence and double jeopardy don't apply to the NFL, they apply to courts and public entities.

Suspension is one thing, but indefinite? Goodell  may be running up against employment law. Forget the union, not sure why the NAACP isn't all over this. I understand NOW is pressuring the NFL, but I'd like to see the NAACP involved. Where's Al Sharpton when you need him? Isn't the black unemployment rate high enough? IMO, this should go through the legal system, and the team has to abide by the contract. If this allows them an out, so be it. But to make him unemployable in the only profession in which he can make this kind of money seems illegal, NFL or not. IMO, the proper stance was to stay out of it, and let the courts handle it. If his fiance/wife doesn't press charges, what case is there?

22
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:22 PM »
Vanishing Evidence for Climate Change

Here's what climate change is really about. And people think ExxonMobil makes money? Not this easily. At least they produce  products consumers willingly buy, and not coerced to buy. More spending on this than wheat. What a gravy train, and disgrace.

The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
 
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:42 PM »
I thought this was a good insight into the mind of conservative thinkers (as opposed to mindless partisans - that I understand!)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/why-its-harder-to-think-like-a-conservative

And this is a rational case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double


Amazed you can understand that writer in the Guardian, when it's really much more simple. Firstly, I suppose he's speaking of the British Conservative Party. But for me, a classical liberal(not the new type) I believe in freedom, not hanging on to anything, but allowing the free market to work its magic. That writer believes in coercion, forcing people to act in certain ways, to his way of what's right and wrong. You certainly should have no difficulty of understanding that.

On the open borders, Milton Friedman nails it, "you can't have open borders and a welfare state".  They're incompatible. Open borders is fine, if you eliminate the welfare state. If people come here to work, fine. In Canada, they're required to invest $600,000 to become citizens. If Caplan wants to eliminate newcomers getting on the public dole, I'm all for it. But that's not the Dem case. They want votes, they want dependence. There are 46,000,000 people on foodstamps already. You'd have half the world come here to get free food, healthcare, housing, and run from violence. Can't have it. No welfare state? Open the borders.

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:25 PM »
Perhaps a better way to approach this is to work on curbing violence as a whole, not just domestic violence. Would we be as upset if the video showed him knocking out another man? Shouldn't we be?

One thing that I would like clarified is about the ownership, distribution of the video. I'm assuming that the casino either gave it to the police willingly or under court order. Does anyone know if Rice's rights were infringed upon when the police turned it over to the NFL?


For anyone who's spent time at casinos, it's often not a happy affair. Can't imagine going with my wife. At least for me, when playing poker, I need to concentrate. But it's quite boring for anyone who's is with you, unless they're gambling. I imagine the elevator ride conversation went something like this.

Q:Hey, honey, how much you got left of that $10 grand I gave you?
A: Nothin. But don't you get on me. You lost more. And if we're staying, I want more.
Then it gets nasty.

Not a pleasant place for couples. Sure, seniors spend their SS checks there, but that's at slots, manageable.

Condi to the rescue?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11096086/Backing-for-Condoleezza-Rice-to-take-over-scandal-hit-NFL.html

25
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 13, 2014, 02:45 PM »
Here's a good article from the Weather Channel....

Get Ready, Florida: 3,200 Days Have Passed Without A Hurricane, But That Streak Will End ... Eventually

Quote from: Get Ready, Florida: 3,200 Days Have Passed Without A Hurricane, But That Streak Will End ... Eventually
Heading in to the heart of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season, it is interesting to note that it has been 8 years, 9 months and 1 week, or 3,200 days, since a hurricane has made landfall in Florida.

This is the longest stretch of consecutive years since 1851 that no hurricanes have hit the state. The longest hurricane-free streak prior to this one was five consecutive seasons from 1980 to 1984.



Twisters near 20 year lows as well, and 80% of twisters(tornadoes) occur in the US. It's due to climate change. When there are more storms, events, it's climate change, and when there are less, it's climate change. When it's hotter or colder than normal, that's also due to climate change. Ebola=climate change(people are arguing that) and the recent turmoil in the Mideast as well(people are also arguing that-I can produce the articles), and now we get 52 reasons why it's not getting warmer.

It's not about climate change, it's about money changing hands. The US government alone spends $22 billion per year on climate change initiatives. This has become an industry, on life support aka taxpayer money. The science stinks. The models are horrendously wrong. All we get our excuses as to why they're wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 247