Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion it is in very bad taste. However, I see teenagers every day doing things in very bad taste. However, I think what these guys did was insulting and racist, especially the picture of the guy in a KKK outfit.

I agree that we should be more forgiving to dumb teenagers than adults, especially those already in Med school. But what defines racism? Is it merely words or actions, or does somebody actually need to get hurt. If someone says or does something "racist" in the privacy of their own home, is that really racist? Whose rights have been violated? Are not stupid and insulting words and expressions also protected by the 1st Amend.?

And why do blatant racists like "minister" Farrakhan get a free pass on everything because he is African American? Why two sets of laws, one for Whites and one for Blacks?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is every bit as insulting to blacks as what Warren did to the native Americans. The native Americans have suffered more abusive behavior at the hands of Americans than even African Americans and we are trying to rectify that by giving a big advantage to anyone who is native American and here is this lily white girl trying to steal that from them.

Liz Warren is a fraud. All of her "success" must be attributed to false pretense. She rose to the top using racial quotas.

But never forget that it was not "Americans" who enslaved African Americans and displaced Native Americans, it was the Democratic Party. The Republican Party of Lincoln always fought on their behalf. Today it is the same with abortion. The Republicans alone have a clean conscience in this regard.

And let's not forget that African Blacks were also guilty of slave trade, and Native American tribes were extremely brutal to one another.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The good news is these are democrats. We saw in the Kavanaugh hearing how incredibly sensitive they are to anything that is viewed as abusive towards women, demeaning, threatening, or rude. You have heard repeatedly how offended they have been at some of Trump's insults. So we know there is no way they will allow a man accused of rape, or these men who are so over the top insulting to stay. No way, the democrats are going to come down on them like a ton of bricks because they don't tolerate any of this, not even by high school kids.

That's "good news?"

In this regard, I appreciate many Conservative commentators I have heard. They called for due process with Kavanaugh, and they are now calling for due process with LG Fairfax. We can never have a fair society that "believes all women," and neither should we "believe all men."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But what defines racism? Is it merely words or actions, or does somebody actually need to get hurt. If someone says or does something "racist" in the privacy of their own home, is that really racist? Whose rights have been violated? Are not stupid and insulting words and expressions also protected by the 1st Amend.?

And why do blatant racists like "minister" Farrakhan get a free pass on everything because he is African American? Why two sets of laws, one for Whites and one for Blacks?

I think Chris Rock has demonstrated that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can be sure that there will be a backlash. The difference is that "racist ministers" are not elected by popular vote.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Chris Rock has demonstrated that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can be sure that there will be a backlash. The difference is that "racist ministers" are not elected by popular vote.

That's your standard? Serious?

What about "appointed" positions?

"Reverend" Al Sharpton visited the Obama White House almost a hundred times. He was more powerful than most elected officials.

What's your point about Chris Rock? I heard his biggest fault was not hating Trump enough.

[Ohio]

Here's my Virginia crimes level from worst to least:

1. Fairfax' multiple rape allegations
2. Northam's plans to legislate infanticide
3. Northam's Klansman
4. Northam's lies
5. Northam's and Herring's Blackface

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's my Virginia crimes level from worst to least:

1. Fairfax' multiple rape allegations
2. Northam's plans to legislate infanticide
3. Northam's Klansman
4. Northam's lies
5. Northam's and Herring's Blackface

Sounds like Northam and Fairfax have to go, you might compromise on Herring. How about the guy who was editor of the paper?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sounds like Northam and Fairfax have to go, you might compromise on Herring. How about the guy who was editor of the paper?

We need a way to resolve these "he said, she said, MeToo" accusations. Few of these can be prosecuted, and trials take way too long. What if Fairfax is totally innocent? There has to be standards of evidence to address these issues for elected officials.

Northam's case is much simpler. We have pictures and videos.

I read an article about how these MeToo accusations are hurting women's opportunities in management. How can senior male staff work with women? How can they even have daily interactions with women, when the potential always exists for women to "go nuclear" whenever they feel slighted, whether or not sexual harassment actually occurred?

I have also read about innocent men who have had their lives destroyed by false accusations on campuses. Many universities now have a "believe all women" policy which allows no due process. They destroyed the entire Duke Lacrosse team this way. This is now the fallout from the sexual revolution of the 60's, wth a half-life of 50 years.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We need a way to resolve these "he said, she said, MeToo" accusations. Few of these can be prosecuted, and trials take way too long. What if Fairfax is totally innocent? There has to be standards of evidence to address these issues for elected officials.

Northam's case is much simpler. We have pictures and videos.

I read an article about how these MeToo accusations are hurting women's opportunities in management. How can senior male staff work with women? How can they even have daily interactions with women, when the potential always exists for women to "go nuclear" whenever they feel slighted, whether or not sexual harassment actually occurred?

I have also read about innocent men who have had their lives destroyed by false accusations on campuses. Many universities now have a "believe all women" policy which allows no due process. They destroyed the entire Duke Lacrosse team this way. This is now the fallout from the sexual revolution of the 60's, wth a half-life of 50 years.

There are excellent tools for proving a woman has been raped. Going forward there is little or no excuse for a woman not to go to the authorities. 40 years ago it might have made sense for a woman to think no one would believe her, but that is no longer true. Everyone needs to be educated as to what the police can do and the proper procedure, just as they have to learn what to do in a traffic accident.

Second, there are a number of aspects of these stories that can be verified. Apparently these women did tell people. But I agree, it is unfair and abusive for a man's career to be destroyed on a "he said, she said" case without any evidence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We need a way to resolve these "he said, she said, MeToo" accusations. Few of these can be prosecuted, and trials take way too long. What if Fairfax is totally innocent? There has to be standards of evidence to address these issues for elected officials.

I think this Smullett case demonstrates that the Lord's prophecy "what you say in secret will be shouted from the rooftop" is being fulfilled. Listen to the DA illustrate step by step how they were able to piece together the evidence and it should be a major revelation that we do have the power to resolve the true accusations from the false ones. The problem comes when someone makes an accusation that is 40 years old. We do have a process for those as well, it is supposed to be a grand jury which is supposed to be secret. The idea is that if you tell what you know but can't prove it might lend credence to other similar reports you were not aware of. But the Kavanaugh hearing violated that. Unless the congresswoman who did that grandstanding is held accountable we will see that again and again.