|
|
|
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:17:12 -0400, yaffaDina <yaffaDina2@aol.com>
wrote:
s_knight8 wrote:
Considering what some people (sic) are saying about her, I'm surprised
she waited this long. And frankly I hope that she does go after some of
the people (sic) and cleans them out for the rest of their dirty
miserable lives.
yD
She needs to clean herself first.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
And none of which are relevant to whether or
not Kobe Bryant raped her.
Oh yes it is. It isn't relevant to whether he MIGHT have raped her --
but it is relevant to whether he DID. What all of this means is that
his version of events is more consistant with what we know about
her, than hers is with what we know about him. Since this is purely
a he-said/she-said case, nothing could be MORE relevant.
|
| |
| |
Michael Snyder wrote:
Oh yes it is.
Oh, no it isn't.
It isn't relevant to whether he MIGHT have
raped her -- but it is relevant to whether he DID.
Wrong again, o' rapist in training. The victim could
have been the most unsavory, mentally/emotionally
unstable twat in the town, she could have even
falsely accused someone of rape in the past.
It is irrelevant as to whether Kobe Bryant, the
fornicating adulterer, raped her on the day in question.
What
all of this means is that his version of events is more
consistant with what we know about
her,
And since the prosecution has the burden of proof, and
Kobe is presumed innocent, if all the case comes down
do is a "he said, she said" without any additional, inculpating
evidence, then Kobe must be found Not Guilty, her prior history
is of no legal relevance.
than hers is with what we know about him. Since this
is purely a he-said/she-said case, nothing could be MORE
relevant.
Wrong again, rapemonger. As stated above, if all it were was
a "he said, she said" then Kobe walks, because he's innocent
by presumption.
What are you afraid of? That there is more, aggravating,
physical and circumstantial evidence against your fornicating,
adulterous, amoral overpaid Negro hero?
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.fratpack.com/article-main.php?id=13
Kate
Faber has claimed she isn't in this for the money, yet she now hires
an attorney who specializes in Libel and Defamation cases.
Translated that means he sues people, on behalf of his clients, who
in this case would be Kate Faber, to get money for his client. Now if
that's not being in it for the money, what would you call it?
Just like Laie, some brave individuals have come out and told the
truth about Kate Faber.
Laie may just get another subpoena to post...
|
| |
| |
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<fggte05ppcosti0mbedlgl3o5crt7tknl7@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:17:12 -0400, yaffaDina <yaffaDina2@aol.com>
wrote:
She needs to clean herself first.
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Mez
|
| |
| |
On 9 Jul 2004 15:33:47 -0700, messalinana@yahoo.com (Messalina) wrote:
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<fggte05ppcosti0mbedlgl3o5crt7tknl7@4ax.com>...
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Wow, another man hater.
You can take your "decision" and shove it for all we care.
Most of us don't support rape or rapists, and I am among the few who
think that anyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty, you idiotic, insecure
and retarded man hater.
|
| |
| |
In the year of our Lord 9 Jul 2004 15:33:47 -0700,
messalinana@yahoo.com (Messalina) wrote:
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<fggte05ppcosti0mbedlgl3o5crt7tknl7@4ax.com>...
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Mez
We aren't that devious. Sports fans don't want him to miss a season.
The rest of us could care less.
Morphy's ghost
What is now prov'd was once, only imagin'd -- William Blake
|
| |
| |
yaffaDina wrote:
s_knight8 wrote:
Considering what some people (sic) are saying about her, I'm surprised
she waited this long. And frankly I hope that she does go after some of
the people (sic) and cleans them out for the rest of their dirty
miserable lives.
Maybe it'll help pay the settlement she'll owe Bryant.
|
| |
| |
Michael Snyder wrote:
Oh, no it isn't.
Wrong again, o' rapist in training. The victim could
have been the most unsavory, mentally/emotionally
unstable twat in the town, she could have even
falsely accused someone of rape in the past.
Coulda. True, but irrelevant. His story is consistant
with both his and her past behavior. Hers is not. That
is the *relevant* fact.
It is irrelevant as to whether Kobe Bryant, the
fornicating adulterer, raped her on the day in question.
No it isn't, oh feminist in lipstick.
|
| |
| |
messalinana@yahoo.com (Messalina) wrote in message news:<f00c23df.0407091433.45e3f03f@posting.google.com>...
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<fggte05ppcosti0mbedlgl3o5crt7tknl7@4ax.com>...
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
No - I see men who have had it with female duplicity.
This is pure and simple gold-digging.
They had sex for 5 minutes, she asked him to stop, and he stopped.
This consitiutes rape in what way?
She is looking to enrich herself, is an unrepentant attention whore,
and is simply lying.
IOW she is a gold-digging psycho #@&@
from hell.
Unfortunately, sex with women who have that psychological profile is
often amazing and wonderful.
It's just that dealing with her moodiness gets to be a chore.
Lee
Mez
|
| |
| |
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Mez,
I'm sure that I'm not the only guy around here who has heard "no means yes"
after some romantic gentle pursuasion. That really doesn't mean that we are
rapists but fembots put it into sweet girls heads all the freaking time! I
could just hear it:
nicebabe to fembot: "I whispered 'no' but he kept kissing me as I wrapped my
legs around his thighs and rubbed my pelvis on him--then he went inside
me..."
fembot to nicebabe: "Oh my gosh, he raped you--that sick pig..."
Anyway, I'll be getting the @$#* out of this @$#*ed up legal ridden country
soon enough. It's getting so heavily bogged down with fat government,
judicial bull#@($, corrupt lawyers, @$#*ed up prosecutors, and
judges...repulsive! Now we have two utter scum running for office--a filthy
trial lawyer and a wicked prosecutor!
|
| |
| |
Michael Snyder wrote:
Coulda. True, but irrelevant.
Exactly, her "coulda" history is completely irrelevant.
His story is consistant
with both his and her past behavior.
His story? Gleaned and embellished from her prior history?
So now that you know her personal history, can
you and other rapists sexually assault this woman
at will, using what you pathetically claim is her
"past" as your rapists defense?
Hers is not.
Really? So you think Kobe's entire adulterous fornicating
history *is* relevant to the prosecution. All the women
he has @$#*ed using his "star power", all the lies he has told
his wife ( truthfulness is at issue).
So the prosecution should be able to, using your logic,
pierce the legal theory of "marital immunity" and force
Kobe's wife to testify against him, about all the LIES he
has told her about his fidelity and sexual activity.
After all, LYING ABOUT SEX ACTS is absolutely
germane to the case at hand. Especially if they can
show that Kobe lied to his wife about THIS particular
adulterous fornication
Have any of his other adulterous @$#*s been forced
or coerced into unwanted or perverted sex or illegal sodomy?
Were they afraid to file charges knowing that cretins
and rape mongers like you would attack them?
That
is the *relevant* fact.
Wrong again. It is legally irrelevant as to whether
Kobe Bryant, the adulterous fornicating sodomite
and liar to his own wife used his star power to
seduce, then anally rape that woman on the day
in question.
No it isn't, oh feminist in lipstick.
Well, when a loser rape monger like you gets to
become either a lawmaker or a judge, then you
can make that decision ... until then, you and
other rapists in waiting will just have to suffer
the consequences of your Neanderthal existence.
Oh lookie here, Kobe is guilty of the CRIMINAL
act of Adultery in Colorado. That'll sure impact
his credibility on the stand ...
C.R.S. 18-6-501. Adultery.
Statute text
Any sexual intercourse by a married person other than with that person's spouse
is adultery, which is prohibited.
History
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 449, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-6-501.
Am. Jur.2d. See 2 Am. Jur.2d, Adultery and Fornication, 3-5.
C.J.S. See 2 C.J.S., Adultery, 3, 4.
Annotator's note. Since 18-6-501 is similar to former C.L. 6837, a relevant
case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this
section.
Purpose of section. This section is designed to prohibit and punish the
disgraceful and scandalous conduct of those who would, by their evil and immoral
example, debase and demoralize society. People v. Bright, 77 Colo. 563, 238 P.
71
Jury determines weight of evidence. In a criminal prosecution for adultery under
former provisions of this section, if there was sufficient evidence to justify
the jury in finding that the parties lived together in an open state of
adultery, the court erred in dismissing the case, since it was for the jury to
determine the weight of the evidence. People v. Bright, 77 Colo. 563, 238 P. 71
|
| |
| |
On 9 Jul 2004 15:33:47 -0700, messalinana@yahoo.com (Messalina) blurted:
Sports Fan <sports@fan.home> wrote in message news:<fggte05ppcosti0mbedlgl3o5crt7tknl7@4ax.com>...
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Mez
I think some wimmens who git tapped are really guilty of reverse-rape. Is there
a program for victims of reverse rape in the land?
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:48:17 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com> blurted:
I've decided that the reason some of you men are so invested in the
Kobe case is because you yourself have come much closer to date rape
than you're comfortable with.
Mez,
I'm sure that I'm not the only guy around here who has heard "no means yes"
after some romantic gentle pursuasion. That really doesn't mean that we are
rapists but fembots put it into sweet girls heads all the freaking time! I
could just hear it:
nicebabe to fembot: "I whispered 'no' but he kept kissing me as I wrapped my
legs around his thighs and rubbed my pelvis on him--then he went inside
me..."
fembot to nicebabe: "Oh my gosh, he raped you--that sick pig..."
Anyway, I'll be getting the @$#* out of this @$#*ed up legal ridden country
soon enough. It's getting so heavily bogged down with fat government,
judicial bull#@($, corrupt lawyers, @$#*ed up prosecutors, and
judges...repulsive! Now we have two utter scum running for office--a filthy
trial lawyer and a wicked prosecutor!
Have fun in France, ewe whiny America-hating diipshiite. Make sure to pick up
your complementary white flag on the way in!
|
| |
| |
There was a guy in Oshkosh Wisconsin who was "convicted" of rape, because
the woman he slept with had multiple personality disorder. He went to bed
with one person, but during the act of sex another personality came out, and
the other personality felt that it was being violated. He was convicted of
rape.
Now, I would certainly not diminish the seriousness which is implied by the
term "rape", but many women have redefined it to mean so many things that it
has become almost BENIGN.
If someone has been convicted of rape in the US, you really have to look at
all the particulars of the case to understand whether or not that person is
even really a criminal or not. Crazy women have done this to themselves, in
an attempt to attack men - they shot themselves in the foot.
Then we have Bill Clinton who @$#*ed one of his Whitehouse staffers
voraciously, an underling, an intern, and the National Organization for
Women STOOD BY HIS ACTIONS. The NOW, and many fanatical man-haters are
clearly seen for what they really are - just hatefull assholes.
I know many women who are single because they are so hateful of men - and
they are withering like rotten fruit. They will shrivel because without love
a person is merely a corpse with a heartbeat.
On a campus in Wisconsin, there was a group of "female only" students who
would meet to discuss womens issues. They would post flyers around campus,
and their advertisements had the image of a large handgun on it - a clear
reference that women are arming themselves against men. Pretty @$#*ing
hilarious when you think about it - but that's the mindset. Very hateful.
There is little wonder "why men leave", or why American women are so
dissatisfied. It is because they suck. If you were in any other country
you'd get treated like a king by your woman, and that's what men need to
do - marry foreign women who are not hateful.
|
| |
| |
Have fun in France, ewe whiny America-hating diipshiite. Make sure to pick
up
your complementary white flag on the way in!
Hey Konan the Cunt,
Who the @$#* said I'd be going to France? And you go ahead and keep paying
those ever increasing taxes and putting up with the lack of true freedom.
By the tune of your ignorance, I'd venture to say that you've never been
outside the states. Face the facts you idiot, can't you see what the last
couple of decades have brought to the good people of the U.S.? Wake up and
smell the @$#*in' coffee, you're becoming slaves to the #@($ty system.
|
| |
| |
There is little wonder "why men leave", or why American women are so
dissatisfied. It is because they suck. If you were in any other country
you'd get treated like a king by your woman, and that's what men need to
do - marry foreign women who are not hateful.
Hey Lefty,
I agree that a good guy should be treated like a king by his woman, and he
should treat her lovingly like a queen.
A real man inherently knows that he is dominant and a real woman knows that
her role is to be submissive to him. The man should not take advantage of
this just as the woman should not take advantage of her dominance over the
children.
The problem in the U.S. is that lawyers have had their way with policy
making the man into a scumbag loser during any negative situation. Why?
Because it's profitable as hell...
|
| |
| |
Excellent post.
Lefty wrote:
There was a guy in Oshkosh Wisconsin who was "convicted" of rape, because
the woman he slept with had multiple personality disorder. He went to bed
with one person, but during the act of sex another personality came out, and
the other personality felt that it was being violated. He was convicted of
rape.
Now, I would certainly not diminish the seriousness which is implied by the
term "rape", but many women have redefined it to mean so many things that it
has become almost BENIGN.
If someone has been convicted of rape in the US, you really have to look at
all the particulars of the case to understand whether or not that person is
even really a criminal or not. Crazy women have done this to themselves, in
an attempt to attack men - they shot themselves in the foot.
Then we have Bill Clinton who @$#*ed one of his Whitehouse staffers
voraciously, an underling, an intern, and the National Organization for
Women STOOD BY HIS ACTIONS. The NOW, and many fanatical man-haters are
clearly seen for what they really are - just hatefull assholes.
I know many women who are single because they are so hateful of men - and
they are withering like rotten fruit. They will shrivel because without love
a person is merely a corpse with a heartbeat.
On a campus in Wisconsin, there was a group of "female only" students who
would meet to discuss womens issues. They would post flyers around campus,
and their advertisements had the image of a large handgun on it - a clear
reference that women are arming themselves against men. Pretty @$#*ing
hilarious when you think about it - but that's the mindset. Very hateful.
There is little wonder "why men leave", or why American women are so
dissatisfied. It is because they suck. If you were in any other country
you'd get treated like a king by your woman, and that's what men need to
do - marry foreign women who are not hateful.
|
| |
| |
Konan the Kuffir wrote:
Do you think Kobe ever @$#*ed his own wife in the ass?
Do you think Kobe's wife still sucks his cock now that
she knows he shoves it up any white girl's anus he can get
to bend over ...?
Do you spend a lot of time thinking about this sort of thing?
--
Dave Zero
"And I don't care about making an ass out of myself because most people
already realize I am one." - Dr. Kary B. Mullis
"I criticize by creation" - Cicero
"I'm not here to make people happy. I prefer to piss people off." - Liam
Gallagher
|
| |
| |
Thanks guy's -
I tell ya, I am a woman lover - but I can certainly understand why some guys
turn gay. Now, I have also known some woman haters, and I really dont dig
those types. In fact I knew of a particular individual in prison who was a
very infamous and brutal rapist. This guy was a woman hater to the core. He
beat his victims half to death. Nobody in the whole prison would even talk
to the guy - he was an outcast even among criminals.
But, there are women who treat men pretty much the same as the guy I
mentioned above, and nobody will point the finger at them. They are above
reproach because they are female. Women can make any accusation against a
man and the EEOC will have you fired or sued. It's really a process of
wealth redistribution.
I can honestly say that there are many women who do terrify me. Not because
I'm intimidated by women, but because I am very wary of man haters. There
are plenty of men who have been murdered by their wives as well - some women
are CRAZY.
I knew a girl who was like 16 or something when I got out of the joint. She
would constantly come around and put her cooch in my face - and it was
pretty tempting. But I'm glad I did'nt take the bait - because it's just a
scam to get you locked up for life. Girl friggin' threw herself at me.
Looked good too - no way I could touch her though, I spent half my time just
hiding from her.
What a pain in the ass they are.
Excellent post.
Lefty wrote:
|
| |
| |
Lefty,
I knew a girl who was like 16 or something when I got out of the joint.
She
would constantly come around and put her cooch in my face - and it was
pretty tempting. But I'm glad I did'nt take the bait - because it's just a
scam to get you locked up for life. Girl friggin' threw herself at me.
Looked good too - no way I could touch her though, I spent half my time
just
hiding from her.
In the U.S., you'd be convicted on child molestation charges for touching,
child rape if you would have gone further.
....But, as an adult, Grey Davis (CA governor) had a relationship with a 16
year old when he was in his mid 20s--no problems of course.
I recently heard of a neihborhood guy, 20 years of age who is currently on
bond (thanks to his parents) whose girlfriend was 16. Her parents didn't
like the situation and called the police. The girl refused to press charges
but did admit to a detective that she had had prior sex with him. Anyway,
I'm feeling really bad for this young man and his family. The poor guy will
be known as a child rapist for the rest of his life.
|
| |
| |
Lefty wrote:
There was a guy in Oshkosh Wisconsin who was "convicted" of rape, because
the woman he slept with had multiple personality disorder. He went to bed
with one person, but during the act of sex another personality came out, and
the other personality felt that it was being violated. He was convicted of
rape.
Now, I would certainly not diminish the seriousness which is implied by the
term "rape", but many women have redefined it to mean so many things that it
has become almost BENIGN.
If someone has been convicted of rape in the US, you really have to look at
all the particulars of the case to understand whether or not that person is
even really a criminal or not. Crazy women have done this to themselves, in
an attempt to attack men - they shot themselves in the foot.
Then we have Bill Clinton who @$#*ed one of his Whitehouse staffers
voraciously, an underling, an intern, and the National Organization for
Women STOOD BY HIS ACTIONS. The NOW, and many fanatical man-haters are
clearly seen for what they really are - just hatefull assholes.
I know many women who are single because they are so hateful of men - and
they are withering like rotten fruit. They will shrivel because without love
a person is merely a corpse with a heartbeat.
On a campus in Wisconsin, there was a group of "female only" students who
would meet to discuss womens issues. They would post flyers around campus,
and their advertisements had the image of a large handgun on it - a clear
reference that women are arming themselves against men. Pretty @$#*ing
hilarious when you think about it - but that's the mindset. Very hateful.
There is little wonder "why men leave", or why American women are so
dissatisfied. It is because they suck. If you were in any other country
you'd get treated like a king by your woman, and that's what men need to
do - marry foreign women who are not hateful.
Yep, there is a war on, and men make all the guns.
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/lr-24v.asp
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
=> Vox Populi wrote:
Do you think Kobe ever @$#*ed his own wife in the ass?
You really are atwisted freak ppoxie - what normal person would even care?
Do you think Kobe's wife still sucks his cock
I think that's *their* business you worthless cunt, go change the
batteries in yer vibrator Lilith.
--
|
| |
| |
FernDog wrote:
Lefty,
She
just
In the U.S., you'd be convicted on child molestation charges for touching,
child rape if you would have gone further.
...But, as an adult, Grey Davis (CA governor) had a relationship with a 16
year old when he was in his mid 20s--no problems of course.
I recently heard of a neihborhood guy, 20 years of age who is currently on
bond (thanks to his parents) whose girlfriend was 16. Her parents didn't
like the situation and called the police. The girl refused to press charges
but did admit to a detective that she had had prior sex with him. Anyway,
I'm feeling really bad for this young man and his family. The poor guy will
be known as a child rapist for the rest of his life.
It depends on what year the faux crime was committed. The "age of
consent" for women was 16 in Washington state when I grew up, and
probably the same when Davis was in his 20s. In NM, the age of consent
was 12 until the early 1990s. For several centuries Catholic Canon law
prohibited girls from marrying until age 7.
Today, under feminism, the age of consent has been raised to as high as
possible to create as many "criminal" men as possible. It's now 18 in
most places in the US, absolutely ridiculous.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
It depends on what year the faux crime was committed. The "age of
consent" for women was 16 in Washington state when I grew up, and
probably the same when Davis was in his 20s. In NM, the age of consent
was 12 until the early 1990s. For several centuries Catholic Canon law
prohibited girls from marrying until age 7.
Today, under feminism, the age of consent has been raised to as high as
possible to create as many "criminal" men as possible. It's now 18 in
most places in the US, absolutely ridiculous.
Bob
It's @$#*ed up how state law (in the U.S.) will label a man a child 'rapist'
or child 'molester' by having affairs with a female who is 16 or 17 years of
age. It's all about big $$ for lawyers, prosecutors, judges, social
workers, cops, etc...
Those who are unable to plainly see this are either blind, frigid, or a
wicked hypocrate.
|
| |
| |
Ya know - this is yet another area where extremism has led to a dilution of
justice.
If someone is truly a child rapist or other type of molester then society
really needs to be protected. I almost got attacked by someone like that
when I was very young. This guy was a real slob, stalked me in a park, fat
greasy bastard otu there in his underwear. I think he was seriously schizo.
But there are other times when young people really do fall in love, and
along comes the self righteous assholes who dump water on it and want to put
all parties in prison. There was a case recently where a boy (~16) and a
girl (~15) were found to have had sex, and the local DA put them both in
juvenile hall. In the US you can go to prison for a natural, normal bodily
function, even when no-one has complained. It's is absolutely preposterous.
I think that if the girl lied about Kobe Bryant, then they should put HER
face up on the sex offender website as having LIED about a sex offense -
because IT IS a sex offense.
|
| |
| |
FernDog wrote:
It depends on what year the faux crime was committed. The "age of
consent" for women was 16 in Washington state when I grew up, and
probably the same when Davis was in his 20s. In NM, the age of consent
was 12 until the early 1990s. For several centuries Catholic Canon law
prohibited girls from marrying until age 7.
Today, under feminism, the age of consent has been raised to as high as
possible to create as many "criminal" men as possible. It's now 18 in
most places in the US, absolutely ridiculous.
It's @$#*ed up how state law (in the U.S.) will label a man a child 'rapist'
or child 'molester' by having affairs with a female who is 16 or 17 years of
age. It's all about big $$ for lawyers, prosecutors, judges, social
workers, cops, etc...
Those who are unable to plainly see this are either blind, frigid, or a
wicked hypocrate.
Indeed you are so right. The prime biological breeding years for women
are from about 16 to 26. After 26 female fertility starts declining.
Women of age 14 to 16 are biologically the right age to begin being
married an having their children. Pretending that they are somehow
unable to consent to sex during their best biological breeding years is
completely preposterous.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
Lefty wrote:
Ya know - this is yet another area where extremism has led to a dilution of
justice.
If someone is truly a child rapist or other type of molester then society
really needs to be protected. I almost got attacked by someone like that
when I was very young. This guy was a real slob, stalked me in a park, fat
greasy bastard otu there in his underwear. I think he was seriously schizo.
But there are other times when young people really do fall in love, and
along comes the self righteous assholes who dump water on it and want to put
all parties in prison. There was a case recently where a boy (~16) and a
girl (~15) were found to have had sex, and the local DA put them both in
juvenile hall. In the US you can go to prison for a natural, normal bodily
function, even when no-one has complained. It's is absolutely preposterous.
I think that if the girl lied about Kobe Bryant, then they should put HER
face up on the sex offender website as having LIED about a sex offense -
because IT IS a sex offense.
YOu are right. In the Bryant case if anyone ought to be on trial it's
Katelyn Faber.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
[...]
It isn't relevant to whether he MIGHT have
raped her -- but it is relevant to whether he DID.
Wrong again, o' rapist in training. The victim could
have been the most unsavory, mentally/emotionally
unstable twat in the town, she could have even
falsely accused someone of rape in the past.
Coulda. True, but irrelevant.
Exactly, her "coulda" history is completely irrelevant.
His story? Gleaned and embellished from her prior history?
So now that you know her personal history, can
you and other rapists sexually assault this woman
at will, using what you pathetically claim is her
"past" as your rapists defense?
And there it is, folks -- if you dare to challenge the feminist party line,
you're accused of being a rapist yourself (or at least, a rapist in
training).
|
| |
| |
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote
The prime biological breeding years for women are from
about 16 to 26. After 26 female fertility starts declining.
Women of age 14 to 16 are biologically the right age to
begin being married an having their children. Pretending
that they are somehow unable to consent to sex during their
best biological breeding years is completely preposterous.
Do you really think this is the only method how COck-sucking
sadistic americunt retards are being bred in Hillbillia, Bobby ?
Don't you think that they must learn to PROVIDE for their own
offspring, let alone for themselves, before beginning to breed,
without looking for handouts, or robbing others, to begin with ?
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other employees of all institutions of the incarceration industry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
|
| |
| |
_ G O D _ wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote
Do you really think this is the only method how COck-sucking
sadistic americunt retards are being bred in Hillbillia, Bobby ?
Don't you think that they must learn to PROVIDE for their own
offspring, let alone for themselves, before beginning to breed,
without looking for handouts, or robbing others, to begin with ?
Uh, no dip#@($. Most young women are sexually attracted to older men
who can provide for their family. It's been that way for a million
years. It's built into the biology.
Only in 20th century feminiziland do we try to pretend that young women
are too young to compete with the old hag feminazis.
Deal with it.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote
news:40F19C22.6010205@hotmail.com...
Most young women are sexually attracted to older men
who can provide for their family. It's been that way for
a million years. It's built into the biology.
Well, duhh... Any old fart would @$#* a younger woman,
especially if she isn't ugly and promiscuous enough to
be laid without an official arrangement or long courtship...
Unfortunately, it looks nice only in those romantic fiction
novels, because in real life not so many "older men" are
capable of @$#*ing, to begin with, lest being good breeders
with *providing* in mind, even if some of them didn't already
have bred previously, but with other women...., are wealthy
enough for it, or have employment that allow them to keep a
woman and to live long enough to see own kids independent.
Only in 20th century feminiziland do we try to pretend that young
women are too young to compete with the old hag feminazis.
Bobby, It's not that I'm against laying younger women, if they
all for it... In fact, if there weren't any grave consequences,
I would | | |
