Group exploits rape victim to smear Buck

Pineguy wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Oh, it's not tripe. Tripe is a fish.

I believe Tripe is the stomach lining of a cow, pig or sheep.

True, but why let a fact get in the way of a good line.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tripe

: something poor, worthless, or offensive

In this case " something poor, worthless".

Pineguy wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Oh, it's not tripe. Tripe is a fish.

I believe Tripe is the stomach lining of a cow, pig or sheep.

It is that. It is also a fish:

Description: The tripe fish (Bathypterois ventralis) is one of the mysteries of the ocean animals. This very small fish of the Osteychties, lives in ocean (1300 to 11 km to down) in total shadow. In habitat of this fish, lives other strange and small fishes. The tripe fish are really mysterious and are a primitive descendent of the flying fish of the Atlantic.

daisypusher wrote: Ah, the classic question and in this case a fallacy known as a false dilemma. If she is asking for it - then bad me - know one asks to be raped. It she is not - then no one deserves to be raped. If a guy answers the door in the nude, gets drunk and goes to be with the woman and she takes advantage of him - did he deserve to be raped (he did think he said no)?

I'm asking because you have stated that there was responsibility on both parties. That is partially true - if she maintained consciousness. Since it appears that she lost consciousness, then should he have taken advantage of the situation in the manner that he did? The fact that you state she is partially responsible suggests to me that you think she asked for the sex, even though at the moment of intercourse, she was unable to tell him "yes" or "no."

It does not matter what she did prior to the sexual act. If she lost the ability to willingly participate (or not participate) in intercourse, then it's rape.

Was she conscious or not? Did he think she was conscious? Did she act conscious at the time, but could not remember due to drinking. Not much to go on there..... Most likely this is why it was not prosecuted. What ifs are always difficult. I hope she appreciates that it did matter what she did before "the act". Until people realize there are actions that puts themselves at risk, then many bad things have a higher probability of happening to them.

wow.....just wow....lets blame the victim......I guess that could work for murder victims too.....wife asks husband for divorce...he kills her....she should have known better. man walking his dog in the neighborhood after dark, gets shot....he should have known better. This sure would save on prosecutions and jail space......a new law, victim beware, you can be held responsible for the bad things that happen to you ( but only if republicans are in power, democrats tend to go after the perpetrators )

Perfect archer, where was your outrage when Clinton was in office? Our present self-propelled turd (Ritter) was a DA also and many crimes never went to trial. Where was your outrage then?

First, perhaps it would be good to have a victim. Was he convicted of rape? No. Let's have a lynching..... :pop

The quick to convict/blame people here truly indicate that perhaps a rape shielding law for men is necessary. Although there are constitutional rights being violated for the current rape shielding laws, there would be no such constitutional rights violations if the person being blamed is shielded until a conviction is obtained. Many a person has been wrecked by false allegations.

HEARTLESS wrote: Perfect archer, where was your outrage when Clinton was in office? Our present self-propelled turd (Ritter) was a DA also and many crimes never went to trial. Where was your outrage then?

FYI....I WAS outraged when Clinton was in office....but he didn't rape the lady when she was unconscious, and he wasn't the prosecutor either. Sheesh.....you righties don't ever.....ever.....take responsibility for your own do you.