Should Jimmy Kimmel resign?
Should Jimmy Kimmel resign?
No, since he hates President Trump he gets a pass from the tolerant left.
If ABC determines there is a financial or reputational risk, he will be fired. The victim card won’t work.
Should Jimmy Fallon resign?
If there is financial risk for the company, then yes. What don’t you understand about this?
And my "Build the wall stance"?...
Foolish. Cracking down on visa overstays would have a much greater affect.
[Edited on 2/8/2019 by BoytonBrother]
Great, let's do both! Personally, I have always wanted more action in all areas to address the illegal immigration problem I have long said, let's throw employers in jail who knowingly hire illegals. Let's come down on every aspect of this problem as hard as we can.
If ABC determines there is a financial or reputational risk, he will be fired. The victim card won’t work.
If there is financial risk for the company, then yes. What don’t you understand about this?
Stepping in here on my own behalf, not trying to speak for BigV or anyone. But I wonder, are you condoning putting monetary reasons ahead of moral justification? I mean, is wrong wrong, or is it only wrong in the scope of a financial impact? I actually agree, it is totally up to the networks and the sponsors and how they want to be viewed related to whom they choose to employ. That is how these things usually go, if the offense or action is so bad that there is negative PR coming from it, the network, business, agency, whatever will cut and run - it doesn't necessarily matter if the accusations are true or if issue in question is especially offensive, all that matters is distancing themselves from the individual in an act of self preservation and to avoid controversy. What I'm asking you BoytonBrother, as someone who I think tries to take the righteous stance and cries out against bigotry or racism...if Democrats or Republicans, or voters, or networks, choose to keep their relationship and endorsements for the accused individual because they do not think it will "cost" them anything, are you ok with that? It seems as if you are, when I would think you would be more in line with getting on the side of right vs wrong no matter other aspects or fallout could be in play.
And my "Build the wall stance"?...
Foolish. Cracking down on visa overstays would have a much greater affect.
[Edited on 2/8/2019 by BoytonBrother]
Great, let's do both! Personally, I have always wanted more action in all areas to address the illegal immigration problem I have long said, let's throw employers in jail who knowingly hire illegals. Let's come down on every aspect of this problem as hard as we can.
If ABC determines there is a financial or reputational risk, he will be fired. The victim card won’t work.
If there is financial risk for the company, then yes. What don’t you understand about this?
Stepping in here on my own behalf, not trying to speak for BigV or anyone. But I wonder, are you condoning putting monetary reasons ahead of moral justification? I mean, is wrong wrong, or is it only wrong in the scope of a financial impact? I actually agree, it is totally up to the networks and the sponsors and how they want to be viewed related to whom they choose to employ. That is how these things usually go, if the offense or action is so bad that there is negative PR coming from it, the network, business, agency, whatever will cut and run - it doesn't necessarily matter if the accusations are true or if issue in question is especially offensive, all that matters is distancing themselves from the individual in an act of self preservation and to avoid controversy. What I'm asking you BoytonBrother, as someone who I think tries to take the righteous stance and cries out against bigotry or racism...if Democrats or Republicans, or voters, or networks, choose to keep their relationship and endorsements for the accused individual because they do not think it will "cost" them anything, are you ok with that? It seems as if you are, when I would think you would be more in line with getting on the side of right vs wrong no matter other aspects or fallout could be in play.
There can be no wall.
The guy who railed in his campaign & still does against illegal immigration depends upon illegal immigrants for his resorts. What applies to the rest of us & USA companies does not apply to the Build The Wall Prez. I guess this doesn't make him a hypocrite? Not only did they work during the construction phases, but illegal immigrants have continued to work in multiple capacities at most of Trump Resorts. So much for the e-verify Trump boasted about. I believe I read they had e-verify at 3 of 12 resorts. Goose / gander?
"More than 100 undocumented immigrants worked at Trump's Bedminster resort during construction"
BUILD A CLUE
What I'm asking you BoytonBrother, as someone who I think tries to take the righteous stance and cries out against bigotry or racism...if Democrats or Republicans, or voters, or networks, choose to keep their relationship and endorsements for the accused individual because they do not think it will "cost" them anything, are you ok with that? It seems as if you are, when I would think you would be more in line with getting on the side of right vs wrong no matter other aspects or fallout could be in play.
Great question. I understand most of us have our biases and axes to grind, but not everyone does have them. Our politicians and judges should be among the latter so as to always put logic and reason first, and not let biases get in the way. The choice to paint your face black understably creates doubt and questions.......there shouldn't be doubt and questions when it comes to fair law-making. Mistakes like that can't be made when governing a municipality and its constituents. So yes, whether Democrat or Republican, I'd want them to step down to avoid any possibility of prejudiced law-making.
In BIGV's example, however, it's a comedy talk show. Capitalism should ultimatley determine what happens because it's entertainment, and it should never be censored. If a network hired Ted Nugent to do a talk show, and it garnered enough viewers to be profitable, then more power to them all. BIGV's posts suggest he thinks it's unfair and a double-standard for Roseanne to be fired, but Kimmel and Fallon get a pass, playing the victim card as usual. But lets keep it real....one is clearly a hostile racist bigot, and the other isn't. To suggest that they are the same is just silly and childish. So, to answer your question, if Fallon and Kimmel did something that was clearly hostile, racist, and bigoted, then yes, I'd be against it and stop watching, and if they got fired because of the financial harm they caused ABC, then they made their own bed.
[Edited on 2/9/2019 by BoytonBrother]
What I'm asking you BoytonBrother, as someone who I think tries to take the righteous stance and cries out against bigotry or racism...if Democrats or Republicans, or voters, or networks, choose to keep their relationship and endorsements for the accused individual because they do not think it will "cost" them anything, are you ok with that? It seems as if you are, when I would think you would be more in line with getting on the side of right vs wrong no matter other aspects or fallout could be in play.
Great question. I understand most of us have our biases and axes to grind, but not everyone does have them. Our politicians and judges should be among the latter so as to always put logic and reason first, and not let biases get in the way. The choice to paint your face black understably creates doubt and questions.......there shouldn't be doubt and questions when it comes to fair law-making. Mistakes like that can't be made when governing a municipality and its constituents. So yes, whether Democrat or Republican, I'd want them to step down to avoid any possibility of prejudiced law-making.
In BIGV's example, however, it's a comedy talk show. Capitalism should ultimatley determine what happens because it's entertainment, and it should never be censored. If a network hired Ted Nugent to do a talk show, and it garnered enough viewers to be profitable, then more power to them all. BIGV's posts suggest he thinks it's unfair and a double-standard for Roseanne to be fired, but Kimmel and Fallon get a pass, playing the victim card as usual. But lets keep it real....one is clearly a hostile racist bigot, and the other isn't. To suggest that they are the same is just silly and childish. So, to answer your question, if Fallon and Kimmel did something that was clearly hostile, racist, and bigoted, then yes, I'd be against it and stop watching, and if they got fired because of the financial harm they caused ABC, then they made their own bed.
Thank you for that.
There can be no wall.
The guy who railed in his campaign & still does against illegal immigration depends upon illegal immigrants for his resorts. What applies to the rest of us & USA companies does not apply to the Build The Wall Prez. I guess this doesn't make him a hypocrite? Not only did they work during the construction phases, but illegal immigrants have continued to work in multiple capacities at most of Trump Resorts. So much for the e-verify Trump boasted about. I believe I read they had e-verify at 3 of 12 resorts. Goose / gander?
"More than 100 undocumented immigrants worked at Trump's Bedminster resort during construction"
https://thehill.com/latino/429136-more-than-100-undocumented-immigrants-wor ked-at-trumps-bedminster-resort-during
Martin, I say this to you as one of the contributors here I look forward to hearing from, I believe you have the ability to see the bigger picture.
You are you, I am me, Trump is Trump. Just because Trump says or does something contradictory regarding an issue (which is quite often), that should not discredit the issue at large.
Trump has never walked the walk. I would say "we should have more things made in the USA" and somebody might say "yeah well Trump doesn't make his stuff here". While that is true and I agree that ignores and in some ways, eliminates meaningful discussion that could be had on that issue.
Why would you say that there "can be no wall" just because there were illegal aliens working at Trump properties and Trump projects? I get that you want to further make Trump's hypocritical or even criminal actions known, but regardless of who or who didn't work for Trump's businesses, that should have nothing to do with the need of a wall to keep more illegals from entering.
We should have mandatory e-verify. I understand that Trump's businesses did not all use e-verify....but that doesn't mean anything for the overall issue. It might mean something specific to him and his credibility, but the fact of the matter is we need to have our employers check the status of prospective employees with a system that can give them a green or red light for hiring them. If the system clears them and the employee has presented fraudulent documentation to get hired, that isn't the employer's fault at that point, that is the system's fault. So in that case the employer should have no liability for illegally hiring them. The people we need to crack down on are the ones that look the other way or purposefully seek illegal aliens to hire. But first and foremost, everyone must be using the same system to check against creating a standard to judge everyone by. Why is there resistance to mandating a nationwide e-verify system for employers? We need that because that is part of what can decrease demand for illegal labor and if we can push that demand down then it has a positive effect on the flow coming in (or overstaying). That needs to be a big part of the overall enforcement to fight the problem - whether Trump uses it or not, the country should.
I know this forum has spiraled down and there isn't much in the way of good exchanges any more, but we make it what it is with our posts. I'm not trying to get you or anyone to stop criticizing Trump, bash away, there are certainly plenty of cause to do so. But when everything boils down to that we lose the ability to speak to each other and I like to think we can still have some of that here.
I know this forum has spiraled down and there isn't much in the way of good exchanges any more, but we make it what it is with our posts. I'm not trying to get you or anyone to stop criticizing Trump, bash away, there are certainly plenty of cause to do so. But when everything boils down to that we lose the ability to speak to each other and I like to think we can still have some of that here.
I'm not jumping in to respond for Martin, but I also wish there were more exchanges than those who go off the rails when something gets interesting. There are people here who have expertise as well as a different perspective that is helpful when thinking about a topic.
IMO, RICO charges are coming for Trump within the next 5 years. So, we have the equivalent of Don Corleone in the WH & are trying to find the ways to discuss around that big glaring fact. I don't think it can be done. I do think we can be civil to each other.
Apologies to Martin.
There can be no wall.
The guy who railed in his campaign & still does against illegal immigration depends upon illegal immigrants for his resorts. What applies to the rest of us & USA companies does not apply to the Build The Wall Prez. I guess this doesn't make him a hypocrite? Not only did they work during the construction phases, but illegal immigrants have continued to work in multiple capacities at most of Trump Resorts. So much for the e-verify Trump boasted about. I believe I read they had e-verify at 3 of 12 resorts. Goose / gander?
"More than 100 undocumented immigrants worked at Trump's Bedminster resort during construction"
https://thehill.com/latino/429136-more-than-100-undocumented-immigrants-wor ked-at-trumps-bedminster-resort-during
Martin, I say this to you as one of the contributors here I look forward to hearing from, I believe you have the ability to see the bigger picture.
You are you, I am me, Trump is Trump. Just because Trump says or does something contradictory regarding an issue (which is quite often), that should not discredit the issue at large.
Trump has never walked the walk. I would say "we should have more things made in the USA" and somebody might say "yeah well Trump doesn't make his stuff here". While that is true and I agree that ignores and in some ways, eliminates meaningful discussion that could be had on that issue.
Why would you say that there "can be no wall" just because there were illegal aliens working at Trump properties and Trump projects? I get that you want to further make Trump's hypocritical or even criminal actions known, but regardless of who or who didn't work for Trump's businesses, that should have nothing to do with the need of a wall to keep more illegals from entering.
We should have mandatory e-verify. I understand that Trump's businesses did not all use e-verify....but that doesn't mean anything for the overall issue. It might mean something specific to him and his credibility, but the fact of the matter is we need to have our employers check the status of prospective employees with a system that can give them a green or red light for hiring them. If the system clears them and the employee has presented fraudulent documentation to get hired, that isn't the employer's fault at that point, that is the system's fault. So in that case the employer should have no liability for illegally hiring them. The people we need to crack down on are the ones that look the other way or purposefully seek illegal aliens to hire. But first and foremost, everyone must be using the same system to check against creating a standard to judge everyone by. Why is there resistance to mandating a nationwide e-verify system for employers? We need that because that is part of what can decrease demand for illegal labor and if we can push that demand down then it has a positive effect on the flow coming in (or overstaying). That needs to be a big part of the overall enforcement to fight the problem - whether Trump uses it or not, the country should.
I know this forum has spiraled down and there isn't much in the way of good exchanges any more, but we make it what it is with our posts. I'm not trying to get you or anyone to stop criticizing Trump, bash away, there are certainly plenty of cause to do so. But when everything boils down to that we lose the ability to speak to each other and I like to think we can still have some of that here.
Ok Neb - will address a few of your points.
I said "there can be no wall" tongue in cheek as a result of the gross and factual hypocrisy of Trump's words vs actions. I have mixed emotions on a wall. He is a major abuser of his own campaign rhetoric. This should give pause to even his most ardent supporters, but I'm not sure they really care, because we've been told too many times that "Trump is different" or "that's just Donald". Sorry, that is unacceptable. He's an abuser on this issue and so many other issues. The others are for a different discussion.
I'm skeptical of the wall cost benefit to start off with. I'm also suspect of the dollar estimates which have been all over the board for the bottom line costs. Then there is the entire eminent domain issue. How many of the dedicated Trump voters who have land along the border would actually would be willing to be paid off for portions of their land? When the rubber hits the road, I'll bet you'd see a lot of these dedicated Trumpsters become less than enthusiastic over the taking of their property. Also, there are portions of the path that run through bodies of water, and that adds to the complexities / practicality of construction.
Right or wrong, a portion of our economy is dependent upon immigrants - some legal & some illegal. That's an issue that needs to be dealt with one way or another. A crack down on the illegals has its impact to many businesses. Again, I'm not making a case pro or con here. Instead I'm pointing out that there's an issue that we either turn our heads or deal with the fallout.
Then there is the biggest issue of all. Trump campaigned religiously that Mexico would pay for the wall. Many of his followers were suckered into the grand lie. It's absolutely pathetic on his part and his sycophants to pivot from that and now expect the American taxpayers to pay for wall that was nothing more than a catch phrase that contributed to his winning the election. Is was a con then and is a con now. But recently he has shifted on Mexico paying for the wall directly to now Mexico indirectly paying for it via new trade agreements and enhanced revenue. What a load he offers.
Border security comes in various flavors. A continuous wall seems impractical. Maybe sections are more realistic in conjunction with enhanced border security. We need to think in terms of today's world - tools, methods, and technology; not necessarily in old age ideas like a Great Wall Of China.
Hope that helps out. It's a start...maybe more I could post but enough for food for thought.
Ok Neb - will address a few of your points.
I said "there can be no wall" tongue in cheek as a result of the gross and factual hypocrisy of Trump's words vs actions. I have mixed emotions on a wall. He is a major abuser of his own campaign rhetoric. This should give pause to even his most ardent supporters, but I'm not sure they really care, because we've been told too many times that "Trump is different" or "that's just Donald". Sorry, that is unacceptable. He's an abuser on this issue and so many other issues. The others are for a different discussion.
I'm skeptical of the wall cost benefit to start off with. I'm also suspect of the dollar estimates which have been all over the board for the bottom line costs. Then there is the entire eminent domain issue. How many of the dedicated Trump voters who have land along the border would actually would be willing to be paid off for portions of their land? When the rubber hits the road, I'll bet you'd see a lot of these dedicated Trumpsters become less than enthusiastic over the taking of their property. Also, there are portions of the path that run through bodies of water, and that adds to the complexities / practicality of construction.
Right or wrong, a portion of our economy is dependent upon immigrants - some legal & some illegal. That's an issue that needs to be dealt with one way or another. A crack down on the illegals has its impact to many businesses. Again, I'm not making a case pro or con here. Instead I'm pointing out that there's an issue that we either turn our heads or deal with the fallout.
Then there is the biggest issue of all. Trump campaigned religiously that Mexico would pay for the wall. Many of his followers were suckered into the grand lie. It's absolutely pathetic on his part and his sycophants to pivot from that and now expect the American taxpayers to pay for wall that was nothing more than a catch phrase that contributed to his winning the election. Is was a con then and is a con now. But recently he has shifted on Mexico paying for the wall directly to now Mexico indirectly paying for it via new trade agreements and enhanced revenue. What a load he offers.
Border security comes in various flavors. A continuous wall seems impractical. Maybe sections are more realistic in conjunction with enhanced border security. We need to think in terms of today's world - tools, methods, and technology; not necessarily in old age ideas like a Great Wall Of China.
Hope that helps out. It's a start...maybe more I could post but enough for food for thought.
It does help. This thread has gone way off topic, par, but I'll take discussions where I can get them.
You are right on every single one of your points.
I agree, Trump is way overstating what actually could be built at the border and what ultimate effect more barriers will have.
I agree, everyone should question where the dollar figure is coming from and what actually that will give us, and where. I will give CBP the benefit of the doubt that somebody in that organization knows what is needed where. They awarded contracts for some of the FY2018 budget money to border wall projects, so they know what is needed where. The President has never told anyone this leading to further skepticism and suspicion. I assume the 17-member Congressional Committee has been given this information.
Taking land away is an issue, that needs addressed, and perhaps that limits where they can build. Remember, the topic now is not a wall the entire length of the border - if nothing else, I think that Trump's opponents can take credit into bringing the President to a much more realistic position.
I agree that we need immigrants and I would even concede that this economy is to an extend dependent on illegal immigrant labor and some employers abuse it - but that is wrong and just because it has been the way we have done things doesn't mean that we should allow it to continue that way. I don't have to tell you, just look at any major issue the left wants to change, see how much resistance to change there is. Look at how much resistance to change there is on this issue. All these big issues have gotten so out of control that it is like moving a mountain - but just because something is overwhelming and difficult means we must leave it status quo.
I agree...we were told, Mexico would pay for it. There is no defense to that, and the fact that Trump is President and he is still wanting a wall (a different wall now, but still) and Mexico is not paying for it (as if they ever would) - I mean, it poisons this whole issue. I know. If there was a direct tax on Mexican and Central American imports, a direct tariff, call it the "Border Security Tariff" where the moneys paid on those goods goes directly to this issue. I know what you will say to this, anyway, that is not where we are. But, here is where I am at...we have decided that some areas needed a wall (fence, barrier, etc) in our past. The need for this type of border security is not complete. There was just a story out of Tucson where 325 Central Americans, nearly half of which were children, were bused to an area where only vehicle barriers existed, a barrier that does nothing to slow or stop foot traffic - and here they are in our country willingly surrendering, waiting to be caught, and now we have to deal with them. Put more barriers up to make entry more challenging, more deterrence, apparently it is still too easy as apprehensions continue to climb.
All the other means of security are good too, the sensors, the drones, the cameras, the agents (which getting people to do this work is challenging, just because the want X agents doesn't mean they can hire that many) - that is all well and good, but we should not have to be dealing with these immigrants in this way, this is the wrong way to immigrate to this country. The barriers makes it harder on them, just like hopefully, like more gun laws will make it harder for the wrong people to obtain weapons.
I am trying to do the impossible...I talk to my Trump friends who always defend Trump and I point out the issues on the other side. I talk to my liberal friends and family members and I try to explain things as I see it on this side.
At the end of the day, we don't count for anything here, our opinions and our words typed out. It is just the fact of acknowledging where the other side raises good points and hopefully making your own opponents understand your own. One of my friends say "Democrats aren't doing what is best for this country, they aren't doing the right thing" and I say, "they say the same thing about you".
Trump will be gone at some point, but illegal immigration is going to continue to be a problem...wall or no wall. I just try and figure it out in my head as best I can.
Either this "Blackface" thing is racist, or it is not. There is no grey area.
Why is it Racist if the Governor of Virginia dons this mask, but not when Hollywood celebrities do it?
OK, OK will come the rebuttal "Don't you get it"?...lol...If Kimmel and Fallon can hide behind the "Lighthearted comedy" reasoning....Why can not the Governor do the same? Was not the photo taken at a Party?
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
OMG, How would this society react if a video of President Trump emerged in said blackface while he was a College student at a Frat Party? Would that be "Lighthearted Comedy" ?
Social codes of conduct change over time.
Either this "Blackface" thing is racist, or it is not. There is no grey area.
Why is it Racist if the Governor of Virginia dons this mask, but not when Hollywood celebrities do it?
OK, OK will come the rebuttal "Don't you get it"?...lol...If Kimmel and Fallon can hide behind the "Lighthearted comedy" reasoning....Why can not the Governor do the same? Was not the photo taken at a Party?
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
OMG, How would this society react if a video of President Trump emerged in said blackface while he was a College student at a Frat Party? Would that be "Lighthearted Comedy" ?
Since you've framed this argument in that there is no difference between a paid actor and an elected official, then the answer is...the society would split in flames 50/50 and eventually nothing would happen.
We are in the era of post-truth, all actions can be rationalized, including any sense of right and wrong. Trump has done one very critical thing and I give him full credit for it. The idea of higher standards for people in higher places has been permanently destroyed. Once everyone is on the same level, then there are no more levels to choose from. Everyone is as guilty as anyone else.
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
To isolate this a little...and with all due respect...this belief is going to come in direct conflict quickly with your abhorrence of "PC" reactions and ridiculing the easily offended.
Either this "Blackface" thing is racist, or it is not. There is no grey area.
Wrong. Context matters. This is very close-minded, simple, and lazy.
Why is it Racist if the Governor of Virginia dons this mask, but not when Hollywood celebrities do it?
Go ask the fringe people on Twitter that you foolishly believe represent our country. Put the phone down.
OK, OK will come the rebuttal "Don't you get it"?...lol...If Kimmel and Fallon can hide behind the "Lighthearted comedy" reasoning....Why can not the Governor do the same? Was not the photo taken at a Party?
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
If you expect our lawmakers and comedians to be held to the same moral standard, then you are a fool, I'm sorry.
OMG, How would this society react if a video of President Trump emerged in said blackface while he was a College student at a Frat Party? Would that be "Lighthearted Comedy" ?
I would hope we all want our President to be held to a higher standard than a comedy show.....the fact that this confuses you is scary.
To isolate this a little...and with all due respect...this belief is going to come in direct conflict quickly with your abhorrence of "PC" reactions and ridiculing the easily offended.
Don't expect a discussion on this very good point. When exposed, he either ignores it, pivots the argument, or bails entirely. Not too much intellectual agility here.
Either this "Blackface" thing is racist, or it is not. There is no grey area.
Why is it Racist if the Governor of Virginia dons this mask, but not when Hollywood celebrities do it?
OK, OK will come the rebuttal "Don't you get it"?...lol...If Kimmel and Fallon can hide behind the "Lighthearted comedy" reasoning....Why can not the Governor do the same? Was not the photo taken at a Party?
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
OMG, How would this society react if a video of President Trump emerged in said blackface while he was a College student at a Frat Party? Would that be "Lighthearted Comedy" ?
Since you've framed this argument in that there is no difference between a paid actor and an elected official, then the answer is...the society would split in flames 50/50 and eventually nothing would happen.
We are in the era of post-truth, all actions can be rationalized, including any sense of right and wrong. Trump has done one very critical thing and I give him full credit for it. The idea of higher standards for people in higher places has been permanently destroyed. Once everyone is on the same level, then there are no more levels to choose from. Everyone is as guilty as anyone else.
Either everyone is held to the same standard or the hypocrisy becomes the brightest light.
To isolate this a little...and with all due respect...this belief is going to come in direct conflict quickly with your abhorrence of "PC" reactions and ridiculing the easily offended.
Funny, but two of the characters in the media leading the charge against the Governor from Virginia were none other than Fallon and Kimmel, who have been dead silent since the photos and videos of them doing the same thing have surfaced.....
In reality, there's no way to know what the general population is feeling or thinking about these stories...it's bizarre that people read an article online and believe it represents everyone in America. But this happens...just look at some of the posts here..."Why is it racist when the Governor does it but not Hollywood", as if this is some fact somewhere. Who determined this, and why are you listening to it? At the end of day, it's just b*tching about other people's thoughts. Why care?
Back and forth BigV and Boyton go. Thread by thread, there they are. It's probably the best ongoing rivalry we have here I suppose. Keeps things interesting atleast.
If Northam had done this as an elected official, if he did is last year instead of last century for me personally I would feel differently about this.
There are some that feel that black face is always wrong and never acceptable. I don't see it that way. Different people get offended by different things, reactions don't need to be universal and uniform. I honestly couldn't care what he dressed up as when he was in his 20s. What is his record as a professional or politician and how does he live his life today, that is what matters I'd think.
As for the sexual assault allegations, who should we believe? Why should I believe the accuser, why should I believe the accused? Without testimony, witnesses, evidence, prosecution and defense with verdict...how can anyone know? Certainly false accusations happen...and certainly some legitimate victims do not press charges or take action. Because I will never know what really happened and who is telling the truth in absence of some investigation I can't pass judgement and say he is guilty or innocent really.
It doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republicans to me, I'm not a racist, I'm not a bigot...to a large extent, I guess I just don't care because how or why should I care when I will never know the truth of the matter. It's unfair to the supposed victim, it's unfair to the supposed perpetrator, but it is what it is. Lots of things happen to people in life that isn't fair that never get corrected or acknowledged. There are many things in life we will never know the truth on, so why get all worked up?
As for the sexual assault allegations, who should we believe? Why should I believe the accuser, why should I believe the accused? Without testimony, witnesses, evidence, prosecution and defense with verdict...how can anyone know? Certainly false accusations happen...and certainly some legitimate victims do not press charges or take action. Because I will never know what really happened and who is telling the truth in absence of some investigation I can't pass judgement and say he is guilty or innocent really.
The rape allegation by the Duke student bothers me because she had the opportunity to go to the police in 2000, let them investigate, and Fairfax would either have been charged or not. She didn't do that. She didn't do that when she alleges she was raped in 1999 by a Duke basketball player. This woman claims to have been raped by two different men within 2 years on the Duke campus and didn't go to the police. There's no information about her allegation against the basketball player.
However, the information she herself provided through her lawyers re Fairfax is that she told friends via email & Facebook that Fairfax had raped her, but didn't go to the cops. She deprived herself & Fairfax the opportunity of a contemporaneous investigation that is the type most likely to be successful. North Carolina doesn't have a statue of limitations on felonies so she could've told the cops at any time, but she refuses.
She keeps silent for 18 years until Fairfax was about to be inaugurated as Lt. Gov & once again, doesn't go to the cops, she goes to the Washington Post. The newspaper doesn't print her story because there's no way to corroborate what she's saying & newspapers require evidence/confirmation from objective sources before printing. When that didn't work, she hired a lawyer who tweeted her story days before Fairfax was about to become governor when Northam was about to step down. None of this sounds like a victim wanting justice for her attacker; it sounds like a woman acting for political reasons.
Back and forth BigV and Boyton go. Thread by thread, there they are. It's probably the best ongoing rivalry we have here I suppose. Keeps things interesting atleast.
Here is the difference in my humble opinion. When I have a belief or a criticism about something Political in any thread in the Whipping Post, I state my thoughts and in doing so defame or speak negatively about no other member here. My comments are directed at a thing, a set of beliefs espoused by a voting block or a group of elected officials. I do not stoop to name calling of any type, never have. Now whether or not I substantiate my position to the satisfaction of anyone else here, bothers me not, never has. My views are mine alone and can be categorized in anyway the reader chooses. But they sure seem to get under the skin of another participant here who feels it is in his best interest to resort to defamation all because I have made my disdain for the Democratic Party evident and that bothers him immensely. I mean, how can such an inane viewpoint even possibly exist? The strongest and "meanest" (LOL) word I have ever used in retort of such audacity is, "Troll" and is applicable because, well, that shoe fits rather snuggly. Look through all of these threads where this "rivalry" supposedly exists and judge for yourself exactly who is loosing their cool. If you don't agree with what I have written and believe I will not respond, simply walk away.
This rivalry as stated exists only in the eyes of one person. Said person may continue their obsession with quoting my words and literally begging for a response all while complaining loudly when none appear.
I have chosen to no longer interact with anyone who is moments away from another tantrum pertaining to a viewpoint shared on a musical message board that "someone" finds objectionable. Said individual's reply is most assuredly going to contain a varied assortment of epithets, the latest of which I have copied and placed in Roland's "Warning" thread. (This type of wisdom and effusive communication warrants being read by all). Condescending? Perhaps. Sarcastic? Definitely, but a quantum leap above a calculated insult; these are carefully chosen judgments, with the intention and object to malign, directed at someone you will never meet face to face.
Decide for yourself if you wish, I choose to remain above that type of outburst firmly believing regardless of what people here say and however you may interpret said words, that type of communication belongs in a schoolyard.
See you all on the boards.
Good points cyclone, I read your thread on it too. Some victims are going to appear suspicious, others will appear more credible. I just know that I am not going to put in the time to learn about the specific cases to form an opinion because I can never have all the facts the way law enforcement or the judicial process would. I agree with you, the best thing any victim can do is report the assault or incident. I also understand there are reasons that victims do not report. It is a sad and difficult issue to work through. You have unique background on it, I'm sure you have seen alot of different things on why some victims don't want to report.
I state my thoughts and in doing so defame or speak negatively about no other member here. My comments are directed at a thing, a set of beliefs espoused by a voting block or a group of elected officials. I do not stoop to name calling of any type, never have.
This is the height of delusion. You post a non-stop stream of bigoted comments, then say “I never name-called.” And? What is your point? Name-calling is not nearly as bad as the bigotry you’ve posted. You are a mess bro.
I have made my disdain for the Democratic Party evident and that bothers him immensely. I mean, how can such an inane viewpoint even possibly exist?
It’s not your viewpoint, it’s that you are pompous and inflammatory when describing your viewpoint...you can’t express your views without insulting other people.
Look through all of these threads where this "rivalry" supposedly exists and judge for yourself exactly who is loosing their cool. This rivalry as stated exists only in the eyes of one person..
Please, you dish it out just as much. Stop.
I have chosen to no longer interact with anyone who is moments away from another tantrum pertaining to a viewpoint shared on a musical message board that "someone" finds objectionable. Said individual's reply is most assuredly going to contain a varied assortment of epithets, the latest of which I have copied and placed in Roland's "Warning" thread. (This type of wisdom and effusive communication warrants being read by all). Condescending? Perhaps. Sarcastic? Definitely, but a quantum leap above a calculated insult; these are carefully chosen judgments, with the intention and object to malign, directed at someone you will never meet face to face.
You post bigotry time and time again, and then play the victim card instead of discussing it. See you on the boards!
Good points cyclone, I read your thread on it too. Some victims are going to appear suspicious, others will appear more credible. I just know that I am not going to put in the time to learn about the specific cases to form an opinion because I can never have all the facts the way law enforcement or the judicial process would. I agree with you, the best thing any victim can do is report the assault or incident. I also understand there are reasons that victims do not report. It is a sad and difficult issue to work through. You have unique background on it, I'm sure you have seen alot of different things on why some victims don't want to report.
Thanks for taking the time to read. It's a horrible crime.
I don't have access to anything more than the news re these two women's allegations, but I was stunned that the former Gov. of Virginia immediately dubbed the Duke student's allegations "credible" & called for the Lt.G to resign.
Without a police report & just looking at some Facebook posts, I doubt he can claim they're "credible" any more than I can. What CAN be done is to investigate the incidents, come to a conclusion, and proceed with knowledge. I think it's premature for anyone to call for the Lt.Gov's resignation w/o an investigation.
There are many reasons women don't report sexual assaults, but the perpetrator is going to continue to make them if his crimes aren't reported. Rape specialists are trained to make reporting the crime less traumatic than it could be, to spot why a victim might be terrified if threatened by the perpetrator & take the steps to protect her, and to stay w/her through trial. They are also trained to spot false allegations. By not reporting the crime, victims expose themselves to further damage. SO, IF YOU'RE ASSAULTED, TELL THE COPS.
What if one dress's up like an indian,chinese dish washer,eskimo,muslim,etc etc etc etc etc.Is that racist as well?How would one dress up as BuckWheat without painting their skin black if they were white?Or is BuchWheat racist now as well?What if a black person dressed up as Col Sander's and painted their skin white,would not that be racist as well?Just sayin!The shoe can fit more than one foot.
