goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 10, 2014, 10:45:12 PM
-
Rolling Stone ran a major 9,000 word expose accusing a UVA fraternity of gang raping a student, apparently based solely on the victim's allegations and without interviewing any of the victim's friends who were there that evening or the alleged perpetrators. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119 (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119)
It now appears that the allegations are not only unfounded - they may be a complete hoax. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?hpid=z1)
:sdeek:
-
I remember when UVA suspended the entire Greek system based upon this article, which seemed patently unfair even if the story were true.
The rolling stone is a joke, and has been for a while. Only complete losers read that magazine
-
I wonder what magazines fsd and ksuw enjoy
-
I don't know why you take such an aggressive stance against alleged victims. It's okay to sit back and wait for the conclusion of the story before picking sides. This just kinda makes you seem like a dick.
-
I don't know why you take such an aggressive stance against alleged victims. It's okay to sit back and wait for the conclusion of the story before picking sides. This just kinda makes you seem like a dick.
Rolling Stone probably should have sat back and waited for the conclusion before they ran their smear campaign too
-
I don't know why you take such an aggressive stance against alleged victims. It's okay to sit back and wait for the conclusion of the story before picking sides. This just kinda makes you seem like a dick.
Did you read the WaPo story? You probably should. It appears that she made up an imaginary date with a college junior, using a picture of an old highschool classmate who barely knew her and attended a different college, in order to make a different boy jealous.
Meanwhile, the UVA has suspended all fraternities indefinitely based on the RS story. I'd say it is the university and Rolling Stone who jumped to early conclusions - not me.
[Jackie's three friends who picked her up right after the "rape"] said there are mounting inconsistencies with the original narrative in the magazine. The students also expressed suspicions about Jackie’s allegations from that night. They said the name she provided as that of her date did not match anyone at the university, and U-Va. officials confirmed to The Post that no one by that name has attended the school.
Also, photographs that were texted to one of the friends showing her date that night were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a junior at a university in another state, confirmed that the photographs were of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years.
...
Randall [one of the three friends] said he met Jackie shortly after arriving at U-Va. in fall 2012 and the two struck up a quick friendship. He said Jackie was interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with him; he valued her friendship but wasn’t interested in more.
The three friends said Jackie soon began talking about a handsome junior from chemistry class who had a crush on her and had been asking her out on dates.
Intrigued, Jackie’s friends got his phone number from her and began exchanging text messages with the mysterious upperclassman. He then raved to them about “this super smart hot” freshman who shared his love of the band Coheed and Cambria, according to the texts, which were provided to The Post.
“I really like this girl,” the chemistry student wrote in one message. Some of the messages included photographs of a man with a sculpted jaw line and ocean-blue eyes.
In the text messages, the student wrote that he was jealous that another student had apparently won Jackie’s attention.
“Get this she said she likes some other 1st year guy who dosnt like her and turned her down but she wont date me cause she likes him,” the chemistry student wrote. “She cant turn my down fro some nerd 1st yr. she said this kid is smart and funny and worth it.”
Jackie told her three friends that she accepted the upperclassman’s invitation for a dinner date on Friday, Sept. 28, 2012.
Curious about Jackie’s date, the friends said that they tried to find the student on a U-Va. database and social media but failed. Andy, Cindy and Randall all said they never met the student in person. Before Jackie’s date, the friends became suspicious that perhaps they hadn’t really been in contact with the chemistry student at all, they said.
U-Va. officials told The Post that no student with the name Jackie provided to her friends as her date and attacker in 2012 had ever enrolled at the university.
Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012. The Post identified the person in the pictures and learned that his name does not match the one Jackie gave friends in 2012. In an interview, the man said he was Jackie’s high school classmate but “never really spoke to her.”
The man said he was never a U-Va. student and is not a member of any fraternity. Additionally, he said that he had not visited Charlottesville in at least six years and that he was in another state participating in an athletic event during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012.
“I have nothing to do with it,” he said. He said it appears that the circulated photos were pulled from social media Web sites.
After the alleged attack, the chemistry student who Jackie said had taken her on the date wrote an e-mail to Randall, passing along praise that Jackie apparently had for him.
Randall said it is apparent to him that he is the “first year” student that the chemistry upperclassman described in text messages, since he had rebuffed Jackie’s advances.
-
Randall should give her a chance
-
Randall should give her a chance
Yes, there's no better way to land the man of your dreams than to claim you were gang-raped. I bet she's got "crazy eyes."
-
Rolling Stone is a joke. This girl is doing a terrible disservice to actual rape victims and actual campus sexual assault issues that deserve attention but will now be treated less seriously or brushed back under the rug. There are many worse outcomes to this than frat boys not being able to party for a month.
-
jesus :sdeek:
-
Is this that skank actress from "Girls"?
-
one of my favorite things about politics is how much neocons get enraged about the fact that lena dunham exists :love:
-
:lol:
-
one of my favorite things about politics is how much neocons get enraged about the fact that lena dunham exists :love:
She is a terrible person.
-
What's this about a grape rape controversy? (Latin joke, son)
-
one of my favorite things about politics is how much neocons get enraged about the fact that lena dunham exists :love:
She is a terrible person.
Agreed. Sounds like she made up her rape story too and dragged "Barry the Republican" through the mud in the process.
-
:lol:
-
Man this thread is way better than I thought it would be
-
Tobias delivers
-
Liberal: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/09/the_cowardice_of_the_unreliable_narrator_why_lena_dunhams_barry_mistake_is_bad_news_for_all_memoirists/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/12/09/the_cowardice_of_the_unreliable_narrator_why_lena_dunhams_barry_mistake_is_bad_news_for_all_memoirists/)
Conservative: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/03/investigation-lena-dunhams-republican-rapist-story-falls-apart-under-scrutiny (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/03/investigation-lena-dunhams-republican-rapist-story-falls-apart-under-scrutiny)
-
Falsely accusing someone of rape is about as low as it gets. You shouldn't be allowed to just ruin someone else's life like that. Hopefully each of these lunatics face some consequences.
-
A guy joining a frat and getting accused of rape is like a girl dressing provocatively and getting raped. Brought it on himself and probably deserved it.
-
A guy joining a frat and getting accused of rape is like Michael Brown getting killed by the police. Brought it on himself and probably deserved it.
-
"big-hollywood" :lol:
-
If I'm understanding chum correctly, Michael Brown deserved to die, girls deserved to get raped and frat guys deserve to be falsely accused of committing rape. :sdeek:
-
If I'm understanding chum correctly, Michael Brown deserved to die, girls deserved to get raped and frat guys deserve to be falsely accused of committing rape. :sdeek:
I'm not surprised you don't understand correctly
-
If I'm understanding chum correctly, Michael Brown deserved to die, girls deserved to get raped and frat guys deserve to be falsely accused of committing rape. :sdeek:
I'm not surprised you don't understand correctly
Why are you here?
-
why are you? :surprised:
-
If I'm understanding chum correctly, Michael Brown deserved to die, girls deserved to get raped and frat guys deserve to be falsely accused of committing rape. :sdeek:
I said probably.
-
It makes most men angry when we hear about false allegation that libber man haters try to sensationalize to perform liturary castration on mankind and leave the notion we are evil mashers and abusers. This hurts women who are truely attacked by low life man scum. If I was a judge I would make a rapist drop his wallies and spear in a blender and turn it on high.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/12/uva_social_change_student_on_debunked_rolling_stone_rape_story_we_need_to_stop_focusing_on_jackies_story_specifically.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/12/uva_social_change_student_on_debunked_rolling_stone_rape_story_we_need_to_stop_focusing_on_jackies_story_specifically.html)
-
lol @ libtards.
-
It makes most men angry when we hear about false allegation that libber man haters try to sensationalize to perform liturary castration on mankind and leave the notion we are evil mashers and abusers. This hurts women who are truely attacked by low life man scum. If I was a judge I would make a rapist drop his wallies and spear in a blender and turn it on high.
Would not vote for that kind of judge.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Gross. http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/14/here-are-eight-campus-rape-hoaxes-eerily-like-the-uva-rape-story/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/14/here-are-eight-campus-rape-hoaxes-eerily-like-the-uva-rape-story/)
-
Gross. http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/14/here-are-eight-campus-rape-hoaxes-eerily-like-the-uva-rape-story/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/14/here-are-eight-campus-rape-hoaxes-eerily-like-the-uva-rape-story/)
The allegations caused police to warn student at the tiny school to stay inside as much as possible to avoid a team of rapists on the loose.
So everyday at KU?
-
Another KU rape case is dismissed, but the judge won't unseal the affidavits leading to the arrest of the two men. They spent over a week in jail.
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Lawrence-Rape-Cases-Dismissed--286451051.html (http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Lawrence-Rape-Cases-Dismissed--286451051.html)
TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW)-- The alleged rape cases against two men in Douglas County have been dismissed.
The Lawrence Journal-World reports that Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson has dismissed the rape cases. The alleged rapes occurred at a Hashinger Hall, a residence hall at the University of Kansas, in September 2014. One of the two men was a KU student. The other attended Johnson County Community College.
Branson dismissed the case because there was “no longer sufficient evidence” for the cases to go to trial. The Journal-World reports that no law enforcement official has released what evidence lead to the arrests. Both suspects spent more than a week in jail before being released on $50,000 bond.
Douglas County District Judge Kay Huff sealed the affidavits leading to the men’s arrests. She continues to say that since the case has been dismissed the affidavits should remain sealed.
-
Wow. A dose of sanity from a Dem. Campus rape is not an academic matter - it's a police matter.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/andrew-cuomo-campus-rape-victims-should-call-police/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/andrew-cuomo-campus-rape-victims-should-call-police/)
-
Ex-pornstar Cytherea gets violently raped by 3 black teens. However you won't get any hits on Google news or any other mainstream media. No feminist is touching this story. Read more about it, shows how mumped up the whole rape culture movement and media is.
http://www.returnofkings.com/57034/why-are-feminists-ignoring-the-violent-gang-rape-of-porn-star-cytherea
http://www.returnofkings.com/57635/mercedes-carrera-explains-why-cythereas-rape-was-not-covered-by-the-feminist-dominated-media
http://youtu.be/9Z85GQF9--s (must watch)
-
Ex-pornstar Cytherea gets violently raped by 3 black teens. However you won't get any hits on Google news or any other mainstream media. No feminist is touching this story. Read more about it, shows how mumped up the whole rape culture movement and media is.
http://www.returnofkings.com/57034/why-are-feminists-ignoring-the-violent-gang-rape-of-porn-star-cytherea
http://www.returnofkings.com/57635/mercedes-carrera-explains-why-cythereas-rape-was-not-covered-by-the-feminist-dominated-media
http://youtu.be/9Z85GQF9--s (must watch)
SVU did a show recently (past month or two) about this.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
Rolling Stone retracts story and issues unapologetic apology.
"We're sorry our story was unchecked bullshit, we only hope this doesn't lead to more frat gang rape in the future"
Nevermind ruining the reputation of entire fraternity. Unconscionable. I hope they get sued for millions.
-
Wow, what a non-apology apology. First, they blame "Jackie" for lying, calling her "a really expert fabulist storyteller" - fooled the whole crack team at Rolling Stone!
Next, they say they were just too darned deferential to Jackie because, golly, they just want to protect rape victims!
Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake, Mr. Dana said, was in suspending any skepticism about Jackie’s account because of the sensitivity of the issue. “We didn’t think through all the implications of the decisions that we made while reporting the story, and we never sort of allowed for the fact that maybe the story we were being told was not true,” he said. That was compounded by the fact that any reporting on any purported crime that has not been reported to the authorities is difficult, he said.
“Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim,” Mr. Woods, the article’s editor, said in the report. “We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.”
Ms. Erdely, Mr. Wenner said, “was willing to go too far in her effort to try and protect a victim of apparently a horrible crime. She dropped her journalistic training, scruples and rules and convinced Sean to do the same. There is this series of falling dominoes.”
And ultimately, Rolling Stone has decided that the "journalist" and editor responsible for this libel will keep their jobs. How brave of them.
-
People still read Rolling Stone? :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek:
-
People still read Rolling Stone? :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek:
Even if the source of the libel has relatively low readership, it gets a much bigger audience once it enters the MSM echo chamber. That's the problem.
-
echo chamber
Rolling Stone retracts story and issues unapologetic apology.
Wow, what a non-apology apology.
-
echo chamber
Rolling Stone retracts story and issues unapologetic apology.
Wow, what a non-apology apology.
ZINGER!
-
The first thing I saw on the story retraction this morning was a news headline about a non-apology apology. I mean, it's no surprise that certain people on here merely repeat what they see/hear elsewhere without actually having any insight or understanding of their own. It's just that sometimes it's more obvious than others.
-
The first thing I saw on the story retraction this morning was a news headline about a non-apology apology. I mean, it's no surprise that certain people on here merely repeat what they see/hear elsewhere without actually having any insight or understanding of their own. It's just that sometimes it's more obvious than others.
You probably saw that headline because that's what it was. It appears to have been worded very cautiously because Rolling Stone expects to be sued.
...and it appears that a suit is likely. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-pursue-legal-action-against-rolling-stone-over-discredited-campus-rape-story (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-pursue-legal-action-against-rolling-stone-over-discredited-campus-rape-story)
I doubt the fraternity will prevail. The legal standard for libel against newspapers is ridic high - usually requires intent? - but I'm glad they're at least getting sued. Hack advocacy journalism that harms people and organizations needs to have some consequences.
Actually, I guess in determining whether the fraternity must prove "actual malice," it may comes down to whether the fraternity is deemed to be a public figure - and the fact that Rolling Stone is a magazine may be irrelevant.
-
We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students.
how is this not an apology?
-
We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students.
how is this not an apology?
Context.
This report was painful reading, to me personally and to all of us at Rolling Stone. It is also, in its own way, a fascinating document — a piece of journalism, as Coll describes it, about a failure of journalism. With its publication, we are officially retracting 'A Rape on Campus.' We are also committing ourselves to a series of recommendations about journalistic practices that are spelled out in the report. We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students. Sexual assault is a serious problem on college campuses, and it is important that rape victims feel comfortable stepping forward. It saddens us to think that their willingness to do so might be diminished by our failings.
That's the conclusion of the apology? That's Rolling Stone's takeaway from all this? "Yo Phi Kappa Psi - our bad. But sexual assault is a serious problem on college campuses (well, the one we reported on wasn't) and it's really sad that our libeling the fraternity might make it less likely for real rape victims to step forward. But yeah, you frat guys, sorry about that. Don't sue us - that would only make it more likely that real rape victims won't step forward."
-
whatever. you can argue semantics all day. they apologized and stated a legitimate concern for how their screw-up will negatively impact the future. rip the article itself all you want, but that apology is fine.
-
I'd be more concerned about future rape victims not coming forward than the reputation of some fraternity, too.
-
I'd be more concerned about future rape victims not coming forward than the reputation of some fraternity, too.
yes, it's a completely appropriate thing to say in an apology.
-
I based my comments on the written apology ksu cited. Which, as written, is a qualified eff you to the people they irreparably harmed.
if you think that underhanded crap faced apology is adequate, you're a terrible piece of crap person and I hope someone falsely accuses you of rape and you're investigated for 2 years, forever branded in the public eye as a rapist, with no prospect of every getting laid again, and the only remedy you have available is "oops, oh well". Because that's the reality of what that story did to that fraternity.
Why in the eff would their bullshit fictional story deter rape reporting in the future???? That makes no rough ridin' sense. It doesn't even deter falsely accusing people of rape because the liar and it's mouthpiece are facing no known consequences for this unprovoked smear job.
This is outrageous, and anyone condoning this is either completely ignorant or a bona fide piece of crap detriment to all of society warranting immediate extermination.
-
whatever. you can argue semantics all day. they apologized and stated a legitimate concern for how their screw-up will negatively impact the future. rip the article itself all you want, but that apology is fine.
Here's some semantics. I hope you actually get gang raped and the rapists punishment is to say, "I'm sorry, but not really because you were a shitty lay"
-
Is that your legal advice?
-
fsd is going to look pretty foolish if/when 'blast gets gang raped. it's going to be awkward for him.
-
I just hope he has the strength to come forward after Rolling Stone just made all of the real rape victims look like liars.
-
I based my comments on the written apology ksu cited. Which, as written, is a qualified eff you to the people they irreparably harmed.
No, it's not. It's an apology and explaining how they mumped up.
if you think that underhanded crap faced apology is adequate, you're a terrible piece of crap person and I hope someone falsely accuses you of rape and you're investigated for 2 years, forever branded in the public eye as a rapist, with no prospect of every getting laid again, and the only remedy you have available is "oops, oh well". Because that's the reality of what that story did to that fraternity.
Why would you wish this on someone? Seems weird.
Why in the eff would their bullshit fictional story deter rape reporting in the future???? That makes no rough ridin' sense. It doesn't even deter falsely accusing people of rape because the liar and it's mouthpiece are facing no known consequences for this unprovoked smear job.
Because maybe people will be quicker to assume victims are lying than before? Is that not possible?
This is outrageous, and anyone condoning this is either completely ignorant or a bona fide piece of crap detriment to all of society warranting immediate extermination.
Why are you so mad? Everyone knows TRS mumped up. I'm not saying they didn't. The fact that you can make yourself sound so stupid when you're on the correct side of the argument is baffling.
-
Ok, let me see if I can explain why this was such a lame-ass, half-assed apology. Two reasons:
1. Put yourself in the frat's shoes. You've just been maligned for nearly a year. Trashed. And then Rolling Stone says to you, "we're really sorry to the frat and anybody else who was hurt by this. And it really makes us sad to think that this might deter real rape victims from coming out." Now again, just imagine that your a member of that frat - the REAL victim. Your reaction to such an apology would be "WTF? that's what makes you sad?!"
2. The knee jerk, PC libtardism that prompted RS to tack on that bullshit final part of the apology - to a group that wasn't harmed by this bullshit story - is the very same knee jerk, PC libtardism that caused RS to abandon all journalistic standards and publish this travesty in the first place. Which simply proves that, while embarrassing, RS learned NOTHING from this event.
-
If I were in the frat, I'd be concerned about real rape victims being unwilling to come forward as a result of the false allegations.
-
If I were in the frat, I'd be concerned about real rape victims being unwilling to come forward as a result of the false allegations.
Oh, hey RAtM, you're in that frat in the Rolling Stone story. You must be a rapist. You say it wasn't true? LOL, whatever, rapist.
-
fsd is going to look pretty foolish if/when 'blast gets gang raped. it's going to be awkward for him.
As long as the rapist says hes sorry and is glad he used a condom, 'blast should be totally fine with being the victim of a rape
-
If I were in the frat, I'd be concerned about real rape victims being unwilling to come forward as a result of the false allegations.
Oh, hey RAtM, you're in that frat in the Rolling Stone story. You must be a rapist. You say it wasn't true? LOL, whatever, rapist.
How many people do you think are aware enough of the original story to know which frat it was, but are unaware enough to not know that the story was rescinded?
-
I based my comments on the written apology ksu cited. Which, as written, is a qualified eff you to the people they irreparably harmed.
No, it's not. It's an apology and explaining how they mumped up.
if you think that underhanded crap faced apology is adequate, you're a terrible piece of crap person and I hope someone falsely accuses you of rape and you're investigated for 2 years, forever branded in the public eye as a rapist, with no prospect of every getting laid again, and the only remedy you have available is "oops, oh well". Because that's the reality of what that story did to that fraternity.
Why would you wish this on someone? Seems weird.
Why in the eff would their bullshit fictional story deter rape reporting in the future???? That makes no rough ridin' sense. It doesn't even deter falsely accusing people of rape because the liar and it's mouthpiece are facing no known consequences for this unprovoked smear job.
Because maybe people will be quicker to assume victims are lying than before? Is that not possible?
This is outrageous, and anyone condoning this is either completely ignorant or a bona fide piece of crap detriment to all of society warranting immediate extermination.
Why are you so mad? Everyone knows TRS mumped up. I'm not saying they didn't. The fact that you can make yourself sound so stupid when you're on the correct side of the argument is baffling.
You're a rough ridin' psychopath. The story was admittedly reckless as published. They've destroyed people's reputations, and at a sizeable cost. That apology doesn't even come close to acknowledging the harm they've done, and the actual remedial measures taken reflect that they don't understand or care. I think a court would be in its right to issue punitives sufficient to shut that rag down.
Falsely accusing someone and subjecting them to the criminal justice system is a crime in and of itself. For gods sake, the person who they wrote the story about wasn't even dumb enough to take it to the police. It was a sham. This sort of journalism is deplorable and outrageous. As far as I can tell, it only encourages falsely accusing people of horrible crimes. I fail to see, and of course nobody can articulate, how this deters reporting of rape in the future. The fact that was the sole thing TRS is remorseful about is shockingly stupid, and I hope they are hanged for it.
-
i just assume that any member of any frat has or will rape a woman
-
If I were in the frat, I'd be concerned about real rape victims being unwilling to come forward as a result of the false allegations.
Oh, hey RAtM, you're in that frat in the Rolling Stone story. You must be a rapist. You say it wasn't true? LOL, whatever, rapist.
How many people do you think are aware enough of the original story to know which frat it was, but are unaware enough to not know that the story was rescinded?
Ahh, the old I killed your dog but bought you a new one argument. What a rough ridin' idiot
-
i just assume that any member of any frat has or will rape a woman
This is correct.
-
If I were in the frat, I'd be concerned about real rape victims being unwilling to come forward as a result of the false allegations.
Oh, hey RAtM, you're in that frat in the Rolling Stone story. You must be a rapist. You say it wasn't true? LOL, whatever, rapist.
RAtM: "Well the allegations were all lies and I had to move out and leave campus for a while, but you know what really makes me upset? That this story about a psycho who made up a boyfriend and concocted a gang rape hoax will make it harder for real rape victims to speak out."
Seriously though Rage, if youre gonna troll make it funny.
-
i just assume that any member of any frat has or will rape a woman
See? That's good trollin.
-
i just assume that any member of any frat has or will rape a woman
This is correct.
Bigots
-
i would like to apologize to all goEMAW posters and to the poster damaged by my poster intimdiation, wackcat08. poster intimidation is a serious problem on goEMAW.com, and it is important that pi victims feel comfortable posting to this blog. it saddens me to think that actual good posters, whose feelings matter, may be less likely to post here due to overagressive pi of shitty posters.
-
List of things they will buy with lawsuit proceeds:
1. Frat dog
2. in ground pool
3. red bull/monster
-
If I were the fraternity, I'd refuse any settlement offer and just try to get it to a jury. I'd then split the proceeds, after legal fees, 50/50 between a rape prevention/assistance charity and a foundation for a professor of ethics and integrity in journalism. eff Rolling Stone. I hope this bankrupts them.
-
If I were the fraternity, I'd refuse any settlement offer and just try to get it to a jury. I'd then split the proceeds, after legal fees, 50/50 between a rape prevention/assistance charity and a foundation for a professor of ethics and integrity in journalism. eff Rolling Stone. I hope this bankrupts them.
interesting strategy
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
-
FRATERNITIES ARE A BREEDING GROUND FOR MONSTERS!!!1!!1!!!!!!
-
If I were the fraternity, I'd refuse any settlement offer and just try to get it to a jury. I'd then split the proceeds, after legal fees, 50/50 between a rape prevention/assistance charity and a foundation for a professor of ethics and integrity in journalism. eff Rolling Stone. I hope this bankrupts them.
interesting strategy
He doesnt even frat dog bro
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Considering it's existence depends upon it, yes, it's probably pretty important.
-
The depos in this lawsuit are going to be awesome
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
Maybe the "leadership", but your average frat brah doesn't care at all about that and actively works towards those things
-
Your average frat brah
-
Bigot
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
Maybe the "leadership", but your average frat brah doesn't care at all about that and actively works towards those things
:horrorsurprise: do you need to come forward about something?
-
Bigot
The vast majority of us were in frats and the cool ones at that, not majorly dorky ones.
-
i'm a little confused about who is going to have their reputation tarnished by this forever. did the story use actual names of individuals?
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
-
i'm a little confused about who is going to have their reputation tarnished by this forever. did the story use actual names of individuals?
The girl asked the Rolling Stone not to contact any of the fraternity bros or house, which should have put an end to the story. She only identified one guy as "Drew", and it turns out he isn't even a member of the frat.
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
It's like, the only 2 risk management things they do. It's important. Plus, nobody wants to be the "rape house" on campus. Might as well be the "AIDS house"
-
Bigot
The vast majority of us were in frats and the cool ones at that, not majorly dorky ones.
lol, wut? Ok
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
It's like, the only 2 risk management things they do. It's important. Plus, nobody wants to be the "rape house" on campus. Might as well be the "AIDS house"
Yeah, they are concerned with being found out, not with stopping those activities
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
It's like, the only 2 risk management things they do. It's important. Plus, nobody wants to be the "rape house" on campus. Might as well be the "AIDS house"
Yeah, they are concerned with being found out, not with stopping those activities
Ok. Started off as a good troll, but now it's just getting dumb.
-
i just like to check in on this thread every once in awhile to see who has been added to FSD's rapin' list
any updates?
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
I beleive it because I know it for fact, at least with respect to my fraternity.
-
I can honestly say, in my fraternity, rape prevention was never on one of our meeting agendas.
-
I bet this fraternity has "the talk" at least once per week on the dangers of mixing women with alcohol.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/texas-tech-no-means-yes-fraternity-phi-delt_n_5865606.html
-
I can honestly say, in my fraternity, rape prevention was never on one of our meeting agendas.
Honestly? In-house risk management can be good to extremely poor depending upon the chapter. It was pretty good at ours at KSU - which, by the way, has a relatively well-managed and tame Greek system. These are 18-22yo males with often far too-little supervision. And college women also seem to be getting dumber and putting themselves in riskier situations when it comes to parties, dress, drugs, and alcohol. It terrifies the general fraternities. They're constantly trying to recruit alums to come in and provide guidance - especially risk management. Women and alcohol are literally lawsuits waiting to happen.
-
Do you think the fraternity gives two shits about rape prevention?
Uh yeah. The two things fraternities care way more about than any other issue are (1) binge drinking/hazing death and (2) rape (real or alleged). Allowing women, alcohol, and worst - women and alcohol - in the fraternity house are liability nightmares.
You can't possibly believe this
I beleive it because I know it for fact, at least with respect to my fraternity.
If these were legitimately the top two fraternity priorities, they would not throw giant parties that create the perfect storm for these things to occur.
-
I can honestly say, in my fraternity, rape prevention was never on one of our meeting agendas.
Honestly? In-house risk management can be good to extremely poor depending upon the chapter. It was pretty good at ours at KSU - which, by the way, has a relatively well-managed and tame Greek system. These are 18-22yo males with often far too-little supervision. And college women also seem to be getting dumber and putting themselves in riskier situations when it comes to parties, dress, drugs, and alcohol. It terrifies the general fraternities. They're constantly trying to recruit alums to come in and provide guidance - especially risk management. Women and alcohol are literally lawsuits waiting to happen.
:sdeek:
-
I can honestly say, in my fraternity, rape prevention was never on one of our meeting agendas.
Honestly? In-house risk management can be good to extremely poor depending upon the chapter. It was pretty good at ours at KSU - which, by the way, has a relatively well-managed and tame Greek system. These are 18-22yo males with often far too-little supervision. And college women also seem to be getting dumber and putting themselves in riskier situations when it comes to parties, dress, drugs, and alcohol. It terrifies the general fraternities. They're constantly trying to recruit alums to come in and provide guidance - especially risk management. Women and alcohol are literally lawsuits waiting to happen.
:sdeek:
I know that's not a PC thing to say, but it is true. Don't be a PCtard. That doesn't mean scantily-dressed women deserve to be assaulted, and it doesn't reduce the culpability of the men involved, but it's still a stupid thing to do. Women are engaging in riskier behavior and it's a serious liability problem. National fraternities are clamping down more and more, as they should. I would bet you that most fraternities outlaw house parties within the next decade. Parties will be held at more easily monitored public venues, just like a number of fraternities already do now.
-
Do you really think that a raper would pass on a possible rape because the potential rapee wasn't showing cleavage or wearing tight pants? He can see a little titty and it's raping time. Those tits are nice and covered, no thanks he'll pass.
-
Do you really think that a raper would pass on a possible rape because the potential rapee wasn't showing cleavage or wearing tight pants? He can see a little titty and it's raping time. Those tits are nice and covered, no thanks he'll pass.
no boners, no rape
know boners, know rape
-
I can honestly say, in my fraternity, rape prevention was never on one of our meeting agendas.
Honestly? In-house risk management can be good to extremely poor depending upon the chapter. It was pretty good at ours at KSU - which, by the way, has a relatively well-managed and tame Greek system. These are 18-22yo males with often far too-little supervision. And college women also seem to be getting dumber and putting themselves in riskier situations when it comes to parties, dress, drugs, and alcohol. It terrifies the general fraternities. They're constantly trying to recruit alums to come in and provide guidance - especially risk management. Women and alcohol are literally lawsuits waiting to happen.
:sdeek:
I know that's not a PC thing to say, but it is true. Don't be a PCtard. That doesn't mean scantily-dressed women deserve to be assaulted, and it doesn't reduce the culpability of the men involved, but it's still a stupid thing to do. Women are engaging in riskier behavior and it's a serious liability problem. National fraternities are clamping down more and more, as they should. I would bet you that most fraternities outlaw house parties within the next decade. Parties will be held at more easily monitored public venues, just like a number of fraternities already do now.
I mean...c'mon guy.
-
Do you really think that a raper would pass on a possible rape because the potential rapee wasn't showing cleavage or wearing tight pants? He can see a little titty and it's raping time. Those tits are nice and covered, no thanks he'll pass.
no boners, no rape
know boners, know rape
Lol
-
i'm a little confused about who is going to have their reputation tarnished by this forever. did the story use actual names of individuals?
The girl asked the Rolling Stone not to contact any of the fraternity bros or house, which should have put an end to the story. She only identified one guy as "Drew", and it turns out he isn't even a member of the frat.
Ah of course. "Drew." Yeah everyone knows "Drew" that goes to UVA. "Drew" that goes to UVA...man his reputation is tarnished forever.
-
I have met a "drew" that went to ksu :ohno:
-
i'm a little confused about who is going to have their reputation tarnished by this forever. did the story use actual names of individuals?
The girl asked the Rolling Stone not to contact any of the fraternity bros or house, which should have put an end to the story. She only identified one guy as "Drew", and it turns out he isn't even a member of the frat.
Ah of course. "Drew." Yeah everyone knows "Drew" that goes to UVA. "Drew" that goes to UVA...man his reputation is tarnished forever.
My point was they never should have identified the frat house just on her word. Poor journalism.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
Everyone knows to not wear yoga pants over there now.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
Everyone knows to not wear yoga pants over there now.
No rape, tho
-
We gotta get some type of rape safe/rape attracting clothes manual.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
And surely it's members' reputations will be forever tarnished.
I'm not saying RS didn't screw up in a catastrophic way, but lets tone it down just a tad. A year from now, anyone who paid attention to this enough to remember that it was the phi psi house, will definitely remember the widely publicized retraction.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
And surely it's members' reputations will be forever tarnished.
I'm not saying RS didn't screw up in a catastrophic way, but lets tone it down just a tad. A year from now, anyone who paid attention to this enough to remember that it was the phi psi house, will definitely remember the widely publicized retraction.
But the women! With their skirts and sexuality, they're practically asking for it! /KSUW
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
And surely it's members' reputations will be forever tarnished.
I'm not saying RS didn't screw up in a catastrophic way, but lets tone it down just a tad. A year from now, anyone who paid attention to this enough to remember that it was the phi psi house, will definitely remember the widely publicized retraction.
i think "let's just tone it down a tad" is exactly what i was going for earlier ITT, but that was a fruitless endeavor
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
And surely it's members' reputations will be forever tarnished.
I'm not saying RS didn't screw up in a catastrophic way, but lets tone it down just a tad. A year from now, anyone who paid attention to this enough to remember that it was the phi psi house, will definitely remember the widely publicized retraction.
If the RS had exhibited a modicum of candor or integrity in its reporting, you might have a point. Still yet, if it had exhibited the slightest bit of remorse for the damage it's recklessness caused the fraternity, it could be forgivable. None of that happened, which makes its actions malicious and unconscionable. In our society, that warrants harsh punishment.
Since its a corporation and not a person, we probably can't punish it though, because corporations can't do anything that's not corporate-y, by the silence of the constitution.
-
Great point, I'm sure nobody at uva knows who is in the phi psi house.
And surely it's members' reputations will be forever tarnished.
I'm not saying RS didn't screw up in a catastrophic way, but lets tone it down just a tad. A year from now, anyone who paid attention to this enough to remember that it was the phi psi house, will definitely remember the widely publicized retraction.
That's not a strong defenses to a libel suit nor should it be. RS needs to be severely punished. This wasn't just negligent (and that's all that's required) it was reckless. The fraternity will have no problem proving damage and it may not even have to (rape accusation would seem to perfectly fit libel per se).
-
do you guys get this fired up about actual rape when it happens? seriously.
-
like, i'm not even sure if there's a Cosby thread around here, but i feel like you're going after RS ten times harder than you have Bill Cosby. why?
-
do you guys get this fired up about actual rape when it happens? seriously.
You think an apology to the stained bed sheets is consequence enough for the convicted rapist, so what difference does it make?
-
do you guys get this fired up about actual rape when it happens? seriously.
You think an apology to the stained bed sheets is consequence enough for the convicted rapist, so what difference does it make?
so, no?
-
It's a long post, but worth a read if you're curious about the various legal hurdles the fraternity will face. Eugene Volokh is a very smart law professor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/05/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story-an-update-in-light-of-the-columbia-school-of-journalism-report/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/05/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story-an-update-in-light-of-the-columbia-school-of-journalism-report/)
The toughest challenge the fraternity will face is whether the chapter and/or national fraternity can sue as a group, since it seems doubtful any individual was identified with enough specificty to stand on his own. But based on the law I've seen and what is cited by Volokh, I'd say there's a better than 50/50 chance that the fraternity will prevail on this point. That's because the allegations of a gang rape performed as part of some initiation defame a large portion of the chapter, and thereby defame all members of the chapter by implication.
The only thing I wish Volokh had addressed was "defamation per se." Under Virginia law, an allegation of "commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude" is defamation per se, which means that you don't have to show any damage at all.
-
Jon Leibowitz's take.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/niqoe4/fact-ish
-
I like volokh a lot, and I think he's right that no individual would have a case. But he kind of nonchalantly dubbed the fraternity a private figure. I think that's a little suspect, and that designation is super important because it changes the negligence standard.
Even so, itll be interesting if they can prove damages to the fraternity itself.
-
itll be interesting if they can prove damages to the fraternity itself.
The chapter or general? Chapter should be pretty easy, what with having to shut down and the vandalism. General may be tougher but I bet they could show a drop in fundraising with creative enough accounting. If this case gets to the damages element RS is eff'd.
I'm also not sure that the public/private figure distinction will matter much, since I think the judge will find a question of fact for the jury as to whether RS was reckless - not just negligent. Again, if this case goes to a jury RS is eff'd.
-
If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.
The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.
-
itll be interesting if they can prove damages to the fraternity itself.
The chapter or general? Chapter should be pretty easy, what with having to shut down and the vandalism. General may be tougher but I bet they could show a drop in fundraising with creative enough accounting. If this case gets to the damages element RS is eff'd.
I'm also not sure that the public/private figure distinction will matter much, since I think the judge will find a question of fact for the jury as to whether RS was reckless - not just negligent. Again, if this case goes to a jury RS is eff'd.
Eh, you're public/private distinction is getting all mixed up. If the fraternity is a public figure, it requires malice -- and there's no way there was malice here. Also, if it's public, then there's no punitive damages.
The negligence/reckless distinction is if this is a "matter of public concern." If the frat is considered a private figure and the rape allegation is a matter of private concern (which i doubt it is), then punitive damages don't require malice. If frat is a private figure and the allegation is a matter of public concern, punitive damages require malice.
-
fsd is going to look pretty foolish if/when 'blast gets gang raped. it's going to be awkward for him.
I mean 'blast does dress pretty slutty
-
frats, man
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030555/Jon-Hamm-s-sadistic-college-hazing-shame-Mad-Men-star-beat-pledge-paddle-set-pants-fire-used-claw-hammer-drag-genitals.html
-
If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.
The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.
So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?
Good thing you aren't a lawyer.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIWFPgkz.jpg&hash=a757f6845b7a524560230737af9d1021235678bf)
-
If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.
The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.
So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?
Good thing you aren't a lawyer.
Try it to the judge dipsmack.
-
What is it with libtards and rape hoaxes? They really really love fake rape victims. The worse the fake rape details the better.
This time it's Dem Sen Gillibrand, who invited "Mattress Girl" to be her honored guest at this year's State of the Union. And it looks like she made it all up.... More disgusting allegations and a life destroyed, and the libtards celebrate the perpetrator of the hoax.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/24/student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/24/student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl)
-
Gillebrand is a certified lunatic.
-
If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.
The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.
So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?
Good thing you aren't a lawyer.
Try it to the judge dipsmack.
I bet RS waives their right to jury trial like instantly, these kinds of cases are always bench trials. :rolleyes:
-
:lol:
-
Seriously though, there is about 0% chance of this being a bench trial. Probably will settle if they get past summary judgment, but it will be tried to a jury if it gets there. Depos are gonna be fun.
-
Seriously though, there is about 0% chance of this being a bench trial. Probably will settle if they get past summary judgment, but it will be tried to a jury if it gets there. Depos are gonna be fun.
FSD thinks you are wrong
-
Fake rape stories really resonate among the libtards. UN Ambassador Samanatha Power is a little behind the times... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/05/18/un-ambassador-compares-struggles-of-afghan-women-to-a-college-student-who-lied-about-rape-n2000392 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/05/18/un-ambassador-compares-struggles-of-afghan-women-to-a-college-student-who-lied-about-rape-n2000392)
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting)
The authors of this article are not partisan critics. One of us is an independent, the other a Democrat who twice voted for Obama and donated to his presidential campaign. But when the president and his party go rogue, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to blow the whistle and fight back.
-
If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable-likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.
that is really bad. i looked up the mentioned retraction, it seemed a little more sincere than the article alleges.
Its language presumes the guilt of all students accused of sexual assault by repeatedly calling accusers who have not yet substantiated their claims “victims,” without the critical qualifier “alleged.”
iirc, h. clinton stated something like this that liblib attempted to defend.
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting)
The authors of this article are not partisan critics. One of us is an independent, the other a Democrat who twice voted for Obama and donated to his presidential campaign. But when the president and his party go rogue, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to blow the whistle and fight back.
Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.
Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions)
In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.
In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.
In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.
He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.
To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.
-
Sounds like a leader :thumbs:
-
If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable-likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.
that is really bad. i looked up the mentioned retraction, it seemed a little more sincere than the article alleges.
Its language presumes the guilt of all students accused of sexual assault by repeatedly calling accusers who have not yet substantiated their claims “victims,” without the critical qualifier “alleged.”
iirc, h. clinton stated something like this that liblib attempted to defend.
You do recall correctly. Clinton said rape victims have the right to be believed. When confronted by a person a book signing - not a journalist, of course - about whether Bill's accusers also have the right to be believed, she responded "until disbelieved based on the evidence."
So Hillary's standard for rape accusations is "guilty until proven innocent by the evidence."
-
Sounds like a leader :thumbs:
Dictators are leaders, too. But not really what we want. You know, supposedly being a country of laws and all....
-
KSUW points out the hypocrites in American journalism. If Bill the Thrill came out and said he is against planned hamburger, he would be labelled as a serial assult er and soon sharing a cell Knockout Cosby. By MG standards is Bill Cosby guilty? Is MG just as loathing as Leacherous Grandpa? LG and MG are not friends to women. They only care about their own golden butts.
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.
Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions)
In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.
In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.
In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.
He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.
To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.
Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable. You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.
Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions)
In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.
In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.
In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.
He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.
To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.
Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable. You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.
:lol: I'm going to nominate this one for the Libtard HOF. Here's the thing, silly, the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws isn't in his oath - it's in the Constitution. Article II Section 3: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He takes an oath, written verbatim in the Constitution, to faithfully execute his office. It is the Constitution that establishes the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. When Obama does not take care that the laws are faithfully executed or creates his own laws unilaterally - as he has in the examples presented above - he is being unconstitutional.
And :lol: at reaching all the back to Andrew Jackson! :lol:
-
A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.
Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.
Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions)
In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.
In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.
In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.
He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.
To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.
Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable. You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.
:lol: I'm going to nominate this one for the Libtard HOF. Here's the thing, silly, the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws isn't in his oath - it's in the Constitution. Article II Section 3: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He takes an oath, written verbatim in the Constitution, to faithfully execute his office. It is the Constitution that establishes the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. When Obama does not take care that the laws are faithfully executed or creates his own laws unilaterally - as he has in the examples presented above - he is being unconstitutional.
And :lol: at reaching all the back to Andrew Jackson! :lol:
Another post of misdirection and obfuscation. I'll take it as your tap out.