Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DATE RAPE! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?
CookingWithCarlo.com ^ | Oct 16 2003 | Carlo3b Dad, Chef, Author

Posted on 10/15/2003 10:05:10 PM PDT by carlo3b

 

DATE RAPE!  DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?


Did he or didn't he?  Has our compassion for an alleged victim in a particular type of crime, allowed our Bill of Rights to go past due! 

Did she or didn't she?  It appears there are more the a few Americans that are now beginning to rethink the compassionate laws that awarded unquestioned protections, to unproved accusations. It has become obvious that these well meaning measures may have gone too far. Has today's culture allowed itself to believe only one side of a conflict where a woman is considered, without ever hearing the other? Are all men sexual brutes?

Would a woman lie?

"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses (of men) exhibit their tyranny."
-James Fenimore Cooper

Men, I learned early on were by nature, bigger, stronger, and much more aggressive than women. The men in my life, great grandfather, grandfathers, uncles, and even neighbors were our protectors, safe keepers, and providers. They were to be emulated, learned from, looked up to. Men were a defense against anything that threatened us. Most men that I knew were good. They loved us, even if they never really said so. I loved the men in my life, because they were good, because the women in my home wouldn't allow them to behave any other way.

Where all men good, and by default, were all boys nice guys? Of course not, and I found that out the hard way.

"If you can learn from hard knocks, you can also learn from soft touches."
-Carolyn Kenmore

I was taught from birth, that women were always looking out for my best interest. My mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunts and yes even my teachers were all there to help me. I didn't always agree with them, but I never for a moment doubted their veracity. Women were the soft ones, the good smelling, caring and tender people in our lives. Why would they want to hurt me, I loved them and they all loved me.

Were all women, and by default all little girls, always good?  Well, as I grew up, I began to discover that girls much like boys, are not always nice. So what happened to make things change?  That came later.

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"
-Shirley Chisholm

Although women were smaller, and mostly weaker in a physical sense, they were not pushovers. Our mothers, and all adult women in our family were the benevolent dictators over everything within the home and family, and that included the men and boys. I didn't have any sisters, but my friends did and they became wiser, a lot sooner in the ways of the world where females were concerned than I did. What I didn't grasp until much later was that not all females were like my mother, and that mothers, acted like females to other people, but never us.

"We create an environment where it is alright to hate, to steal, to cheat, and to lie if we dress it up with symbols of respectability, dignity and love."
-Whitney Moore, Jr.

Can and do men and boys take advantage of smaller and weaker people? Yes, of course. Does that include women? Absolutely!  Does that include sex?  Without a doubt.

Ergo, all men always take advantage of everyone, especially women, in every case, without question, were sex is concerned!

That is absolutely absurd, and would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. However, in most states in The United States of America, in the case of an accusation of sexual assault, a man is considered guilty, and is treated as such, until and if he can prove otherwise. However, he must never accuse the accuser of any motive other than of that misinterpretation of his disgusting intentions.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not a chance. Presumed innocence? Not in the current court of public opinion, and not in too many criminal courts of law either. A man is not allowed to proffer any questions or produce evidence of a pattern of behavior that casts any doubt on the accuser.

Thus, a man must present a defense that casts him as unethical, uncaring, and a vicious beast who perpetuates the accusation, promotes the stereotype, and confirms in public the appearance of guilt, beyond a shadow of doubt.

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
-Albert Einstein

Does it happen, that men, evil men, not only can and in some cases, do rape and brutalize women? You bet they do and when proven, the law should treat them in the strongest punishments allowable by law. A woman should be given an unencumbered opportunity to bring to justice anyone, that takes advantage of them and their bodies. They should be allowed to bring into court any pertinent evidence that casts the perpetrator in as damaging a light as the law allows.

It is true that filthy crimes of this nature are seldom committed in public where witnesses can collaborate an accusation.  However, this is true of most serious crimes, and that unfortunate fact, does not change the burden of proof.

A man, or a woman for that matter, presumably enters court innocent until proven otherwise. In such cases the accuser can bring into court any past behavior or a propensity to commit such a crime. Thus is the character of our court system, and the reason we have juries of our peers, to weigh the facts, and dispense the entitled punishment, or exonerate. Nothing should interfere with the process that we have in place.

This is not a unique position that I propose.. It was the law of the land...



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: accused; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 next last
To: christie
But the concept that all you have to do is say NO at the last moment and all is well is insane. That's like standing in front of a freight train, whispering "Stop."

Well said. Or a pedestrian expecting that right-of-way rules will protect him from a truck. It seems, unfortunately, that because a woman has "a right to say no" at any point in a sexual encouter, that some girls believe this will actually ensure their safety. Philosophy is full of rights that can be mighty difficult to enforce.

I take no position on whether this young woman was raped; there's simply too much conflicting "evidence" being offered. However, she's unquestionably an object lesson for other women who'd like to avoid rape. My lecture would start "Don't do a single thing that Miss X did."

51 posted on 10/16/2003 11:21:03 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Where am I? Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me Mom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
YEAH.. what you said!.. :)
52 posted on 10/16/2003 11:23:25 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Sex is an act that involves two people......I have to ask myself why the law only affords legal recourse to one of them if the act is not performed to her liking. In the interest of "sexual equality," I've come up with an option. Maybe men should be given equal time by allowing them to bring charges against female sexual partners for "being a bad lay." That way, the playing field would be leveled and both participants could enter into the act with the fear of legal charges hanging over their heads......wouldn't that make sex fun???
53 posted on 10/16/2003 11:34:54 AM PDT by freedox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
That is particularly sad with regard to the tortured interpretation of the Constitution.
54 posted on 10/16/2003 12:16:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: christie
what a great post!
55 posted on 10/16/2003 12:23:40 PM PDT by Queen Jadis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freedox
Sex is an act that involves two people..

What? What happened to the other 7?.. Sheeeesh ..Youth.. :@)

56 posted on 10/16/2003 1:00:45 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Yup, she asked for it. Went into the room with a man......got what she deserved. How dare she.......and those provocative yellow panties....worse than Monica's thong.

I don't think I ever said she got what she deserved. That is the argument to stop the discussion that there are consequences to conduct.

No woman (or child or boy for that matter) deserves to be raped. It's a horrible crime. And a crime it is. And it should be severely punished.

But in a generic sense, I wish we would find some common sense and dignity in our behavior. Being taught that you can just say no is crazy. Yes, women have the right to say no, but changing her mind midstream and then charging rape is not right.

When it becomes a he said, she said situation, the defendant should have every right to defend himself.

57 posted on 10/16/2003 2:17:51 PM PDT by christie (http://www.clintonlegacycookbook.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Queen Jadis
Thanks.
58 posted on 10/16/2003 2:18:40 PM PDT by christie (http://www.clintonlegacycookbook.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Great essay, carlo!

(cough)

Collaborate: to work jointly with others
Corroborate: to support with evidence

:-p
59 posted on 10/16/2003 3:22:38 PM PDT by mamaduck (I follow a New Age Guru . . . from 2000 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Good piece. Pinging for a later read.
60 posted on 10/16/2003 3:28:58 PM PDT by Buggman (Jesus Saves--the rest of you take full damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Colorado law demands that permission be granted by the judge before the claims are made public.

30 days before a jury trial; the law doesn't mention or apply to preliminary hearings -- the prosecutor himself acknowledged that in his press conference yesterday.

61 posted on 10/16/2003 4:04:50 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mamaduck
LOLOLOL.. picky, picky.. :)
62 posted on 10/16/2003 6:06:33 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
... “Gossip, (and slander) is like mud thrown against a clean wall; it may not stick, but it leaves a mark.”“Gossip, (and slander) is like mud thrown against a clean wall; it may not stick, but it leaves a mark.”

Which is exactly how marxist/communist gain supporters.

"Tell a lie long enough and it will become truth."

Gee, now who may have said that?

By golly, it was not said by a someone in the U.S.S.R.!

Sorry Carlo, I'm not picking on you, but the idiots who follow the democRAT party line and never realize what that party now stands for!

63 posted on 10/16/2003 10:53:38 PM PDT by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedox
In the interest of "sexual equality," I've come up with an option. Maybe men should be given equal time by allowing them to bring charges against female sexual partners for "being a bad lay."

Purge, Purge, Purge all visuals... must get it out of my head, Purge, Purge (dang-it I ain't that old, I remember when this stuff was for Fun) Purge, Purge all visuals. Just Dam, now I got to hire a stinkin lawyer just to go to sleep at night! Now on the Flip side - IF she was ARMED and she was RAPED would we discussing this at all?

64 posted on 10/16/2003 11:46:30 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (If you can read this, Thank a Teacher. If this is in English, Thank a Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Budge
""Tell a lie long enough and it will become truth."" By golly, it was not said by a someone in the U.S.S.R.!

Yes indeed I agree my dear FRiend, it was said by Adolph Hitler! It has been adopted as the motto of the Demorats... LOLOL

65 posted on 10/17/2003 5:08:58 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
There are no facts, only interpretations."

He's a lot more right than you think.

Interpretation of what?

66 posted on 10/17/2003 12:10:47 PM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
Interpretation of what?

Interpretation of one's experience.
67 posted on 10/17/2003 12:46:46 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
"Homeschool Mom Syndrome" :-)
68 posted on 10/17/2003 4:07:41 PM PDT by mamaduck (I follow a New Age Guru . . . from 2000 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freedox
freedox, yer a nut! LOL

It seems sometimes if a woman looks back and realizes she was just used for sex, she can claim rape.

What if a man is used for sex by a woman, does he have the same right?

Not that a man would mind under normal circumstances...

But if he was seduced and lied to...but women don't do that, just men?

:>)

Thanks for leveling the playing field.

69 posted on 10/17/2003 8:54:48 PM PDT by Syncro (All retorical by the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend; MeeknMing; Alamo-Girl; Ragtime Cowgirl; nopardons; ntnychik; dixiechick2000; Arpege92; ..
OldFriend is 100% correct.

Defense attorney was required by law to bring this up with the hearing judge in private chambers before her media orgasm.

Here we have a wimpy judge and an El Cheapo 5&10 prosecutor and a multi-millionaire lib woman defense attorney.

Six (6) count 'em Six (6) times this "b" atty broke Colorado rape shield trial statutes and procedures and the judge did zero!

This wimpy flexible lib judge should be empeached &/or removed &/or ????????

If you think it's OK to break established laws do not gripe when I sell the description, license plate #, and location of your new BMW to some "oppressed" gangbanger in your area.

It's "only fair"!

If I was related to this woman or a friend, Kobe Bryant would now be hiding in the back mountains of Castro's Cuba shaking and crying.




Guaranteed!





(Ask my daughter!)


70 posted on 10/17/2003 9:24:54 PM PDT by autoresponder (censored & ripped off by Angelfire/Lycos/Tripod lefty PC wimps-caution Hillary's buddy web hosts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
It's clear that this Judge does not want to harm the celebrity climate that exists in that resort town.

The victim is expendable in the grand scheme of welcome to the 'in' crowd.

Last year a skier was seen recklessly speeding down the slope. He crashed into a fellow skier, killing the man. Colorado decided the visitor from Britain was not liable for his reckless behaviour and no charges were filed.

Ski resorts have only one value.....the bottom line and justice be damned.

71 posted on 10/18/2003 6:41:42 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
of course they don't....carville just tells her they did and it is bush's fault she didn't enjoy it.
72 posted on 10/18/2003 6:52:28 AM PDT by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
It's "only fair"! ..
If I was related to this woman or a friend, Kobe Bryant would now be hiding in the back mountains of Castro's Cuba shaking and crying. ...
Guaranteed!

I am so sorry for your daughter, whatever horrible thing happened to her.. but just "TO BE FAIR", what if you are the mother of a boy that had some gutter slut accuse him of rape because he didn't ring her bell in bed! I know what was he doing in... BLAH, BLAH

Give me a break, you and dangerous jerks like you, are the reason that stupid unfair laws like this travesty exists.. what do you personally know about this case that we, and apparently the JUDGE doesn't know..

The defense had every right under existing Colorado law, to bring into court (that was open to the public because the prosecutor demanded it) any relevant evidence that impeaches or impacts the accusations against this defendant. Her dalliances with one or several men within the time frame of the incident has grave consequences on the validity of the alleged injuries..

SAVE YOUR DAUGHTER'S FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT by not sharing whatever sick episode she endured, just  to make your unworthy point, she has you as a parent, and for that she is a truely a real victim already!
 

73 posted on 10/18/2003 8:43:56 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
No, Nietzsche was wrong. There ARE facts. Often we don't know what they are, but the facts exist nonetheless. If facts don't exist, then nothing exists.
74 posted on 10/18/2003 9:23:56 AM PDT by gitmo (Hypocrite: Someone who dare aspire to a higher standard than he is living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.
75 posted on 10/18/2003 9:33:11 AM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
While we're talking about 'being fair' and 'leveling the playing field' - I want to know the color of the panties the priests were wearing when they seduced the altar boys. And did the altar boys wear thongs? What about the blue cassocks? We have thousands of posts about this woman's anatomical parts, her public hair, and semen in her underwear yet no details about alleged attacks on men or boys. Many ask what a concierge is doing in a hotel room. How many ask what an altar boy is doing in the rectory. hmmm...I wonder why?
76 posted on 10/18/2003 9:38:21 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Zevonismymuse
(A) Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.

(B) But it would certainly cause me to doubt her claim that any vaginal swelling,bruising or redness was caused by the one fellow she refused.

PRECISELY the issue. The defense is trying to say that the injuries supposed caused by the [alleged] rape are consistent with injuries caused by having sex with three different men in three days. The error here is that the prosecution brought forth those injuries as evidence of rape. The defense should have a right to refute that evidence by showing it as a possible result of other actions rather than the [alleged] rape

77 posted on 10/18/2003 9:38:56 AM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
Six (6) count 'em Six (6) times this "b" atty broke Colorado rape shield trial statutes and procedures and the judge did zero!

Let us assume that the Defense Attorney did it deliberately and her "oops" appearance was a total sham. Do you know WHY she could get away with it?
They were using the initials of the supposed victim, but those initials are very similar to the name, and having used the name countless times in the last month, it is quite foreseeable that a person would slip from the initials to the name.
error here belongs to the dummies who decided to use the initials rather than "Jane Doe."

78 posted on 10/18/2003 9:48:00 AM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
No, Nietzsche was wrong. There ARE facts. Often we don't know what they are, but the facts exist nonetheless. If facts don't exist, then nothing exists.

see my post #75

79 posted on 10/18/2003 9:49:07 AM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: fqued
How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.

I'll buy that. But that's now what Nietzsche said. Plus, he thought God was dead. He's probably changed his mind about that by now, though.
80 posted on 10/18/2003 10:03:36 AM PDT by gitmo (Hypocrite: Someone who dare aspire to a higher standard than he is living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
I'll buy that. But that's now what Nietzsche said. Plus, he thought God was dead. He's probably changed his mind about that by now, though.

very droll

81 posted on 10/18/2003 10:22:32 AM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: OldFriend
Open your eyes, this is not about her behavior, but more about "the scene of the crime". It is possible that something else might have ocurred to change or alter the once existing evidence.

The defendant has a right to any possible witness.

Think of it as tracing steps, it is not as if they are going into her past.
83 posted on 10/18/2003 10:34:12 AM PDT by Dadofmany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: ladyjane
DEAR JANE! I hope it is my thread that you are using as a vehicle of response and not me that you directed your observations about the priestly pedophiliac. I would gladly hold them down as you dissect their ungodly members. Unfortunately this case doesn't appear to have any clear victims as those innocent alter boys.
85 posted on 10/18/2003 12:08:12 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mamaduck
"Homeschool Mom Syndrome" :-)

I'll assume, Carlo3b = C- in spelling ...one tough teacher/mom :(

86 posted on 10/18/2003 12:12:32 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: gitmo
No, Nietzsche was wrong. There ARE facts. Often we don't know what they are, but the facts exist nonetheless. If facts don't exist, then nothing exists.

As I said earlier, one can posit with reasonable certainty that there are "things" that have an existence and that they exist independently of our perceptions of them. However, "fact" is itself a concept, a mental construct, that is used to describe certain categories of experience or intellectual operations. Also, look at your last sentence for a good joke.
88 posted on 10/18/2003 1:06:37 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: fqued; MeeknMing
Last defense law firm that tried that crud on me cost the defendant over $17 millon dollars.

Was not even close; they settled out of court and hit the idiot defendant for over $5 million in legal costs.

Never mess some people.

Some here on FreeRepublic already know of that case.

No brag, just fact!
89 posted on 10/18/2003 1:06:56 PM PDT by autoresponder (censored & ripped off by Angelfire/Lycos/Tripod lefty PC wimps-caution Hillary's buddy web hosts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: fqued
How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.

Or, there is no uninterpreted human experience of reality.
90 posted on 10/18/2003 1:08:25 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
Huh?
91 posted on 10/18/2003 1:13:05 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
was that in trial, or at a preliminary hearing?

I am also a lawyer, here in Colorado, and the rape shield statutes seem to be written to only apply in an actual trial. although one could argue that the spirit of the law applies to a prelim, that is not nec what the statute states.

You may have won big bucks, but again, was it in trial or at a prelim hearing? and in what state? and how was the statute written?

Seems also that you are talking about a civil suit, this here is a criminal case prelim hearing. Was your situation a civil suit?
92 posted on 10/18/2003 2:25:42 PM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
[I wrote:] How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.

[you replied:] Or, there is no uninterpreted human experience of reality.

And . . .? If you are correct, I am not at all certain that this in any way contradicts, alters, illumines, etc. what I wrote. I take it you are agreeing with me?

However, once we start dealing with the basis of human experience, there are certain UNDENIABLE truths.
example: the Law of Non-Contradiction. The LNC cannot be denied, for the very statement of denial invokes the LNC.
Once we get past certain undenial truths, then we can examine how we interpret reality. My statement that there are no un-interpreted facts in no denies that our perceptions of reality do not closely approximate reality, which does, indeed, appear to be the case.

93 posted on 10/18/2003 2:36:05 PM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dadofmany; OldFriend; MeeknMing
"tracing steps" = "not going into her past"

"is" = "is"

junk all the existing statutes

anything is legal

where do you park your Jaguar?
94 posted on 10/18/2003 2:43:23 PM PDT by autoresponder (censored & ripped off by Angelfire/Lycos/Tripod lefty PC wimps-caution Hillary's buddy web hosts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: fqued; MeeknMing
Love to go up against that 2 bit defense attorney.

Have blown off far better shysters.

Good for my portfolio.........
95 posted on 10/18/2003 2:46:31 PM PDT by autoresponder (censored & ripped off by Angelfire/Lycos/Tripod lefty PC wimps-caution Hillary's buddy web hosts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
Love to go up against that 2 bit defense attorney

She ain't no two-bit attorney. . . check her CV. You might be surprised. And as a CRIMINAL defense attorney, she is mighty fine, and also probably mighty expensive.

Insulting her is all fine and good, but educated insults do better and hit harder.

96 posted on 10/18/2003 2:53:06 PM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I don't "do" grades. With homeschooling any mistake is merely a learning experience. No conclusions, no judgments. Cool, huh? :-)
97 posted on 10/18/2003 3:30:27 PM PDT by mamaduck (I follow a New Age Guru . . . from 2000 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: fqued; MeeknMing
Slick, Hillary, and one Florida attorney were all supposed be hot stuff.

Bill allegedly taught Constitutional Law at a university but claimed he was not a Constitutional "scholar" when things got real dicey; empeached, disbarred, no SCOTUS access.

Give any sharp 15 year old kid a copy of The Federalist and let them read it and study it; not many mysteries there.

Hillary was supposed to be on of the top 100 or top 10 attorneys in the US or somethin' according to who spewed it.

Not researched myself, but I saw credible threads here on FR stating she was only a "rainmaker" and rarely appeared in court herself or handled any serious cases.

Both Slick and Hill were alleged "geniuses"; both turned down for basic MENSA which only requires a dinky mid-130s M certified testing.

Many here on FR with much higher IQs and many with equal or lower that are much "smarter".

JFK had more horsesense with only 119.

He had lots of faults too, but he had more basic smarts and genuine interest in the security of the USA, unlike Teddy.

Hard to admit, but I have some admiration for the unbiased journalism of Maria Shriver compared to Katie Couric.

As for F. Lee and his OJ trial showpiece, most know of his little problems in Florida.

I cannot comprehend how those so high as F. Lee can do such dumb things.

But then look what Slick did on live camera at Ron Brown's funeral and on that jet video with the flight attendant with the camera there clicking away.

But he survived it and went on to 100K-200K speeches abroad.

I would not trade places with him for any amount of money or power or glory.

Whatever "glory" and "power" is.

Talk about selling your soul; marrying Hillary is a bridge way too far!

Tempting to mention some big attorneys and their own local histories but that would be unwise.

Enough of that.

I find the FR "spellcheck" and "grammarcheck" buttons are not working again.......

More coffee.

Forget who posted that interesting odd FR thread on coffee several weeks back.

Good coffee is more important then good beer.

I know that's a wild statement, but there is some merit to it.


98 posted on 10/18/2003 3:34:26 PM PDT by autoresponder (censored & ripped off by Angelfire/Lycos/Tripod lefty PC wimps-caution Hillary's buddy web hosts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
Good coffee is more important then good beer.
I know that's a wild statement, but there is some merit to it.

Not a wild statement at all. Two of coffee's great assets:
1) it is a great pain-killer and accentuates the effects of pain-killers. Caffeine is often added to tylenol--might even be that the caffeine is the more effective pain-killer.
2) brain food--stimulates the brain, but appears to have NO deleterious side-effects (as long as the drinker doesn't have 10 cups a day).

99 posted on 10/18/2003 3:57:25 PM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
My Jaguar is in the garage, why do you ask?
100 posted on 10/18/2003 4:01:46 PM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson