OT: The News Thread

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

I'm not asking you in a vacuum though. I'm asking you in the most general sense possible.

Is there any possible circumstance where your son could have been molested and the perpetrator could only serve 2 years and you agree with the sentence.

If yes, then please share.

You are asking in a vacuum and you are not going to get any more of an answer than I have already given.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Yep,
it's hard to understand for most of us looking in, but just like some woman will crawl back to the guy who beat them, sexually abused people must have a whole 'nother level of problems.

it isn't really the same though as the woman might due to self esteem, need for financial security etc

he didn't have to invest, but did anyway, that is the odd part

 

[johnunit]

it isn't really the same though as the woman might due to self esteem, need for financial security etc

he didn't have to invest, but did anyway, that is the odd part

Women do NOT just go back purely for financial or 'self esteem' reasons. That's hugely oversimplifying it.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Those are two very major reasons for them staying. Security for the children too.

 

[corksens]

You are asking in a vacuum and you are not going to get any more of an answer than I have already given.

Coward.

 

[corksens]

You don't have the guts to admit that if it was your son being molested and raped and not Fleury (remember: he is someones son), that you would not agree that 2 years is an adequate amount of time.

Pathetic.

 

[corksens]

Times’ ad selection shows hypocrisy, cowardice

by Peter Worthington

Rarely is a double-standard so obvious in the media – and so reflective of society in general — as a full-page ad in The New York Times attacking Catholicism and urging people to “consider quitting the Catholic Church.”

Mind you, it wasn’t the NYT advocating this, but a $38,000 ad from an atheist group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), that ran mid-March.

The ad was in the form of a letter that asked Catholics: “Why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated … sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and coverup going all the way to the top.”

The ad was accompanied by a cartoon of a bishop bellowing and ranting and was signed by FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker.

The anti-Catholic ad ranted: “Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, overpopulation, social evils and death that can be laid directly at the door of your church’s precious doctrine that birth control is a sin and must not be allowed.”

Furor erupted when Pamela Geller, president of something called Stop Islamization of Nations, submitted a mimicking ad, with a cartoon of a wild-looking mullah, basically substituting “Islam” for “Catholic” in the wording.

The anti-Islamic ad railed: “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims … Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’ ”

Double-standard comes in because while the NYT accepted the anti-Catholic ad, it refused to run the anti-Muslim ad. In a letter, the Times said it might consider the ad later, but to run it now “could put U.S, troops and/or civilians in the (Afghan) region in danger.”

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/ge...tter-hypocrisy-and-cowardice-in-ad-rejection/

 

[johnunit]

I'd pay for both to run.

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

I would suggest that it's safer to mock those who won't kill you for it.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

We have the technology to kill far more of them if we want to.

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

If the NYT thought a bunch of nuns would go on a killing spree they wouldn't have printed the ad. Well, killing Americans anyways.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

You don't have the guts to admit that if it was your son being molested and raped and not Fleury (remember: he is someones son), that you would not agree that 2 years is an adequate amount of time.

Pathetic.

I told you douchebag that it was a bullshit question and it was in a vacuum. I do not answer questions in vacuums when it comes to legal matters.

Face it, no matter how I answer you will attack.

If I say yes, that is fine, you will say I am either full of it or a terrible father/human being.

If I say no, you will claim I am a hypocrite and a disgusting human being ginger pig.

 

[HabsAddict]

As someone who's voted Liberal multiple times in the past, personally I won't even consider voting for them as long as Rae is their leader, interim or otherwise.

:thumbsup(22):

Rae has more baggage on him then Madonna And Lady Gaga combined. Although the Fibrals are trying to re-write his epic Ontario failure.

 

[HabsAddict]

I would suggest that it's safer to mock those who won't kill you for it.

There is another word for that.......and it's not complementary.

If the NYT thought a bunch of nuns would go on a killing spree they wouldn't have printed the ad. Well, killing Americans anyways.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The NYT run the Abu Ghraib story incessantly. Where was their concern then?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thu1.html

It's simply the NYT showing it's true leftist colours.

 

[Leafovic]

Meh. I wish people would be smart enough to realize that the guy does not have the same views he once held.

He'd be a great leader. I love the guy.

:thumbsup(22):

Rae has more baggage on him then Madonna And Lady Gaga combined. Although the Fibrals are trying to re-write his epic Ontario failure.

 

[lecoqsportif]

I'd pay for both to run.

Yep. But also include ads for the Protestants, Copts, Orthodox, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, Christian Scientists, Ralians, Jehovah Witness, Jedis, etc.

 

[HabsAddict]

I'd pay for both to run.

Count me in. Count me in for twice as much if some mfr thinks he can shut me up with threats.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Meh. I wish people would be smart enough to realize that the guy does not have the same views he once held.

He'd be a great leader. I love the guy.

And he would hand the Tories another majority.

 

[voyager]

And he would hand the Tories another majority.

It's a little premature to say that in 3 years that Rae at the helm will automatically lead to another conservative majority. By 2015, it will have been 20 years since Rae was premier of Ontario, to say the the electorate have that long of a member is giving far too much credit to the average person. Hell Jays, you were still in diapers when Rae left office and you have no recollection of how he governed.

We're still 3+ years away from the next election, anything can happen in that time frame. The only thing that is apparent is that Rae is the only opposition leader who looks like he knows what he's doing. Turmel has been anything but forgettable, and as for the Bloc, i honestly can't remember their name. The NDP may see a resurgence once MuClair is crowned, but i'm not certain.

 

[LeafGm]

:thumbsup(22):

Rae has more baggage on him then Madonna And Lady Gaga combined. Although the Fibrals are trying to re-write his epic Ontario failure.

It's going to be interesting watching the Liberal response to the Conservative attack ads on Rae. They seem to be divided on how to respond. Some think they should go on the offensive and defend their leader, whether he's "interim" or not, others think they should save their money until they elect a permanent leader. I'd say it's a pretty good bet that the people who want to throw around a whack of dough defending Rae immediately are the ones who want him to be their permanent leader, and the ones that want to wait are the guys who don't support Rae. So, the strategy that ends up winning out may be a good indication of how much support Rae has.

And Leafovic, seriously, if the Liberals ran with a turnip as their leader, you'd enthusiastically support the turnip.