|
Ladies Forum A place for our female Calgunners to discuss, share and interact without the 'excess attention' sometimes found in online forums. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps a 1st yr class for women only, where the whole quarter or semester is learning all the iterations of NO and how to convey it.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion. NRA Patron Member CRPA 5 yr Member "...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I can see this going in all different directions. Its political correction gone mad all over again. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Actions have consequences. Don't stand in front of a train, then you wont have to worry about the fairness or not of being hit by one. |
#124
|
||||
|
||||
and I will add that at one time men didn't take the issue of rape seriously: it was a woman's problem. now it is a problem for everyone. while laws were on the books, local universities didn't follow them or allow local police to do their job. now? everyone is talking about how unfair it is. too bad that discussion didn't happen before.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by bonusweb; 12-19-2014 at 6:07 PM.. |
#126
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Fairness" damaging property, or making false accusations of rape??? Now this is just stupid.. Being upset because someone did not call you back, does not justify falsely alleging a crime (which is a crime)... Nor does it justify vandalism or any other act of retribution... Thats just one of the many problems with our young people today. They have been raised in a world where hurt feelings justify all sorts of over the top reactions including committing what they feel are "justified" criminal acts, solely to make themselves feel better.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Issac Newton, folks. Actions trigger reactions. Don't lie , don't play games, and you won't have to worry about keys meeting your car's clearcoat or the cops meeting you over a rape complaint. Debating this is like debating the fairness of DUI pentalties-dont drink and drive, and you won't have to worry about it. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The gender is irrelevant. People will do all sorts of irrational stuff if they feel they've been wronged, and few categories rival being wronged in matters of the heart. Entire empires have burned over that topic. Don't want a false rape complaint? I'm with you. That's why I don't lie to my paramours, and I dont touch inebriated women. I'm not worried about this law any more then I'd be worried about the statutes on embezzlement. In case people think I'm just being argumentative, I've been drunk before and experienced the decidedly unwanted advances of an older and married woman chasing me. Talk about a "there ought to be a law" moment. The fact that we need legislation to clarify that both genders ought to not push things too far for attention from the other speaks to a massive social parenting failure.That's a problem I lay at the feet of the "older people" who prioritized the career ladder over their kids' well being. |
#130
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Don't want to be executed, don't lie, don't play games. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Much easier then, say complying with every regulation that merits death in a repressive Panem type society . |
#132
|
||||
|
||||
GardoneVT, what you are saying is men now have to take personal responsibility which they always should have been doing.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by finsfan21; 12-19-2014 at 9:12 AM.. |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Oh MZ, stop turning this into a war on women issue. The same thing goes for men. I have had a lot of sexual harassment by women in the past, but nobody took me seriously. Heck, at one job the women in the office were always trying to take off my clothes. I have also been sexually harassed by men. When I was younger and in good shape, the dirty old men used to love to grab a feel.
|
#135
|
||||
|
||||
Who cares...
Justifying criminal behavior because someones feelings were hurt, and their judgement was distorted because of those feelings is stupid.. I'm reminded of a very wise saying, I learned as a young cop.. "Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think". So I don't really care if someones "feelings" were hurt by some perceived slight.. Grow up, your not in second grade....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
sexual assault is sexual assault and yes it goes both ways.....as well as within the same gender group.
my statement above was a condensation of GardoneVT's post so if you want to make an accusation of "war on men", please take it up with him.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt Last edited by movie zombie; 12-19-2014 at 9:22 PM.. |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Butthurt" is not sexual assault.....but now it is. That's the point. Sexual assault was always sexual assault. Now anything is sexual assault. See the problem?
__________________
|
#138
|
||||
|
||||
This post is in the Women's Forum. For those of you OT fans who'd like to pile on, please don't. We don't like it and we push back. Intelligent comments are always welcome, of course.
So much FEAR ! Rape kits do not detect regret or second thoughts. Rape kits do not detect lies or truths told the previous night. Rape kits do not detect failed follow-up phone calls. They do not record jealous tantrums three days later. What they do detect is evidence of date-rape drugs, excessive alcohol, evidence of force or assault, specific physical evidence of who was or was not involved. And how many people were involved. They detect physical evidence of locations and conditions at those locations. They include the objective observations of the nurse or doctor administering the kit. Doctors include their impressions of the behavior of the victim, including state of mind. Rape kits collect evidence of a major crime. It's just a version of CSI. They can be used by either gender. If you're afraid of false accusation and conviction, don't be. DOJ says that only about 2% of reported rapes are false, just like any other major crime. That means that 98% of reported rapes are valid. LEOS are not stupid and can generally tell a genuine crime when they see one. So if you're worried about your partners getting their feelings hurt and retaliating by accusing you of a felony, you're choosing the wrong partner. This is on you, not her. Why would you sleep with someone that crazy? Did you choose a stranger, someone whose behavior you couldn't predict? Stupid, just stupid. Gardone is right. If you want adult pleasures, take adult responsibilities. Pick the right partner, stay away from strangers until you know them and forget tumbling into bed with the first girl drunk enough to accept you. If guys were as picky about their partners as girls are, or should be, this whole topic would come up a lot less. Short guideline: Never sleep with someone who is crazier, drunker or more irresponsible than you are. See Rule #1: Safe sex is not just about condoms. Some of you are familiar with the "first base, second base, third base rule" that women use or used to use in the Dark Ages. The purpose of that rule was to ensure that a woman had enough time to judge who she was dealing with. At least three separate dates. Guys who didn't score on the first date and got mad about it never got the second date. If guys used a three date rule (see above), they'd be a lot safer and a lot smarter. Come to think of it, why don't they?
__________________
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY • Do only safe sex. Never have sex with someone crazier than you are. • Don't marry or move in together before you're both at least 25. • Don't have children until you're married five years or at least age 30. • Put 10% of your salary into savings every month no matter how broke you are. • Don't ever screw around with the IRS. • Keep a handgun on your bedside table. • Don't smart-mouth judges, or cops who stop you on the road. Last edited by BonnieB; 12-19-2014 at 9:54 PM.. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
The fbi states around 8% are false accusations
That's kind of a big difference, not to mention that an accusation won't be considered false until proven the accuser was lying which can be hard to prove...so I would guess the real numbers are quite a bit higher. |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY • Do only safe sex. Never have sex with someone crazier than you are. • Don't marry or move in together before you're both at least 25. • Don't have children until you're married five years or at least age 30. • Put 10% of your salary into savings every month no matter how broke you are. • Don't ever screw around with the IRS. • Keep a handgun on your bedside table. • Don't smart-mouth judges, or cops who stop you on the road. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Only 3 of those studies are based on the USA
Of those lisak lists 5.9% in his 10 yr study The fbi lists 8% And kanin lists 41% in his 9 yr study on one university campus The rest is on the UK, and from the Rumney study you have 2% in NY, 8% us doj, and 20% Philly in 1968 (all of which I do not trust due to a % given but no number of cases even offered, just a n/a) |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
Indeed, MZ. I, personally, do not believe the new law will have that much efficacy. In the instance of many rapes, especially among youths, the non-violent ones are frequently not reported. I have a friend who was in college and she was raped through inebriation. Knowing her, I have no doubt to the veracity of her claim. She was reluctant to come forward, but after she did, three other women came forward against the guy who had done the same thing. Men are frequently raped by other men, and this a highly unreported crime because victims are ashamed to come forward. Some real sick sexual predators are men that will rape other men because they know they are much more likely to get away with it. Inconsensual sex has never been okay, but will the new law really make a different (effectively) if victims do no come forward? The law may help as a preventative measure for the responsible folks that have sense to err on the side of caution, but the bad folks probably won't care. Then, there is still not a great probability that a crime will be reported.
|
#143
|
||||
|
||||
had local law enforcement and the universities done their jobs using law already on the books this would never have become a law in and of itself. instead they had their reputations to uphold and the future of the rapist was more important than the present day AND future of the rape victim.
while there are unfounded reports of rape, the statistics support that the vast majority/percentage are real. and I see it in this thread: whether it is 2% or 8% there seems to be more concern for them than for the 98% or 92% of actual rape victims. on calguns there is an overwhelming support for the death penalty even if there is the chance someone innocent will be put to death for a crime that person did not commit. but when it comes to rape the attitude is more along the lines of "but what about that 2-8% that are false accusations?". again, the important thing is that people are talking.....and hopefully talking to their sons and daughters as well. and, JMP, you are so right: the bad folks won't care and there is still not a great probability that a crime will be reported no matter the gender.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt |
#144
|
||||
|
||||
From my experience, universities (especially of prestige and large endowments) tend to be some of the greater offenders of censorship there are. Things like hate crimes are really quieted very quickly. Look at the Penn State football program fiasco--it went on for a long time AFTER the administration was told, but they turned a blind eye. That being said, universities have toned down some of the big time partying where a lot of the nonconsensual sex takes place. Campuses are a far cry now from the Animal Houses of the 1980s and earlier.
|
#145
|
||||
|
||||
This is such a good idea it isn't fair to have it only for college students.
But I also have some questions about the Constitutionality of the govt requiring only certain words be used between consenting adults. So here is my proposal which would sort all this out. BEFORE this is imposed on students at public institutions (who by law have various Rights to be there, making such impositions legally problematic), let us first impose this new requirement on college FACULTY and all members of CA House and State Senate and their staffs, and of course Jerry Brown and his staff. From there we can work down the Power Structure food chain of CA state and local govt and next require Police and Firemen, office workers, inspectors and school teachers to fellow these new legal guidelines. They say "rape isn't about sex, it is about power" so as a real world practical matter we need to focus on groups with strong tendencies to abuse people with less power, as well as people that we have some legal ability to order about (govt employees, not private citizens). Obviously, if we can't require unproven violations of Brown's new law to be used to punish or 'expel'(fire) these EMPLOYEES we sure can't use it against students/taxpayers who have earned a legal right to attend public colleges. I've recently seen lots of minor(under 18) children being required to sign one sided "contracts" to do various things by school officials as part of various newfangled "programs". I don't like that for a lot of reasons, but I think we could have the aforementioned groups of public sector employees publicly sign "Yes means Yes" contracts (with their spouses or partners in attendance) as part of their continued employment requirements. PS-While "Yes means Yes" sounds simple, the reality is this new bill has at least 27 subsections. I think we first need to see if our legislative staffers and college faculty can understand and abide by it before we force it on less educated students. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967
__________________
Am I a good shot!?!, YEAH I'M A GOOD SHOT!....i just got bad aim Last edited by The Last American Hero; 12-20-2014 at 9:50 AM.. |
#146
|
||||
|
||||
Hero, children under 18 are not legal adults and can't sign a binding contract of any kind, without a parent or guardian's co-signature. I wouldn't permit my child to sign one nor would I be held responsible for any such contracts. If my child signed without my knowledge I would deny the contract's validity and I'd win.
As for college faculty and staff, ALL of them sign agreements on sexual congress with students of any age. All agree that they will lose their jobs, even if tenured, if convicted of molesting a minor or by vote of the Faculty Senate if the student was of age to consent and did. So in colleges, a 30 year old student is off limits to faculty and staff, even if the student consented (yes, silent no, whatever). This is not a law, it is a condition of employment for educators. How do I know this? Because I have worked for Tufts University, Northeastern University, Boston University and Harvard. And the policy is the same in all those places. Lawmakers and government employees are subject to the same legal system as the rest of us and don't need special laws. They need to be caught and prosecuted if they break those laws.
__________________
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY • Do only safe sex. Never have sex with someone crazier than you are. • Don't marry or move in together before you're both at least 25. • Don't have children until you're married five years or at least age 30. • Put 10% of your salary into savings every month no matter how broke you are. • Don't ever screw around with the IRS. • Keep a handgun on your bedside table. • Don't smart-mouth judges, or cops who stop you on the road. Last edited by BonnieB; 12-20-2014 at 1:43 PM.. |
#147
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2)I would like colleges to apply the new law to faculty's sexual relationships to ANYONE(I mentioned signing the contract with spouses or partners in attendance), just as students can get in trouble for things they are accused of doing to students or NON-students. 3)Those are all private colleges, not sure what policy is in CA public but I'm sure faculty is much more entrenched. 4)If everyone is "subject to the same laws" why does CA govt want to subject public college students to punishment for alleged crimes without convictions, while Govt employees aren't subject to same punishments for similar alleged crimes? IIRC public colleges can and will expel students over rape or other claims after the cops and DA refuse to file charges. The gist of this new law will be that public colleges will be able to expel or otherwise punish students who were alleged to have violated the law without normal legal protections. Yet no such provision exists for Civil Service or other Govt workers. In a spectacular non-rape, non-college case, after temporarily fleeing to his native Mexico, then being found "not guilty" of massive corruption and abuse all of the "Riders 4" got their jobs back with Oakland PD. I'm just saying we need to first fully apply all aspects of this law to all public employees before applying it to anyone they are paid to serve. The most important aspect of that is ALL faculty sexual activity needs to 'count', including with anyone with no connection to the college, because colleges have given themselves permission to punish students for violations of sex laws where the other person was a non-student, and like a student they need to be punished for allegations, not just convictions. To make this legal and fair, we need to fire any tenured faculty(male or female, or anything "in between) if ANYONE makes any allegation that they didn't comply with the new law's language protocols. Like the planned actions against students, the person making the allegations would not be in any way "Under Penalty of Perjury".
__________________
Am I a good shot!?!, YEAH I'M A GOOD SHOT!....i just got bad aim Last edited by The Last American Hero; 12-20-2014 at 2:30 PM.. |
#148
|
||||
|
||||
There is NO ONE more entrenched than tenured Harvard Faculty. No where, not anywhere .
We digress. The topic is California State Colleges and Universities, which are the ones affected by the recent new State regulation (not a law). Ordinary citizens, grade school children and spouses of state employees are not under discussion. Let's stick to the topic, which is the new regulation that California State College and University staff, being State employees, are required to refer alleged rapes to local LEO's for investigation and prosecution. They are no longer allowed to let campus security who are not sworn, handle these complaints. I stand corrected. I read the summary of the education code change (not law), and I find no reference to calling the local LEO's. I do find reference to setting up a particular structure that governs the college's response and makes certain actions mandatory. I wish the college admins were out of the picture entirely, and leave it to the LEO's, who have actual crime experience...
__________________
WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY • Do only safe sex. Never have sex with someone crazier than you are. • Don't marry or move in together before you're both at least 25. • Don't have children until you're married five years or at least age 30. • Put 10% of your salary into savings every month no matter how broke you are. • Don't ever screw around with the IRS. • Keep a handgun on your bedside table. • Don't smart-mouth judges, or cops who stop you on the road. Last edited by BonnieB; 12-20-2014 at 7:03 PM.. |
#149
|
||||
|
||||
I would note that the laws/regulations already exist, Hero, and once again it is the lack of enforcement of those laws/regulation that is the problem.
but as Ms BonnieB states this has gone way off topic and it is time to return to California, California law, California regulation, etc.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt |
#150
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have not read the exact text of the new law. If the Administrators were allowing "security" to handle these crimes then I agree wholeheartedly. But, just to make sure..Each UC and State University has their own sworn police departments. Is the local city Police or County Sheriff now going to be required to complete the investigation. It just might be a good idea to keep it away from the involved Administrators of the UC or SU.
__________________
May I always be the type of person my dog thinks I am |
#151
|
||||
|
||||
Here is the actual new law:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967 It has nothing about requiring school admin to "call the cops"(except some vagueness about requiring to give the victim "written notification"), because in the USA no one knows how to dial 911? "(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate." It does have a whole new required Policy for students, and ONLY students for "yes means yes". "institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:" That new Policy is a metric ton of some ill defined college staff being REQUIRED to do all sorts of pseudo-police activity like: "interviews" and "Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people." and " comprehensive, trauma-informed training"(WTF is "trauma-informed"?), and "Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties." and "Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident." ALL of this to be done by the College staff, and not required to be reported or shared with actual police. All this for "evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process", a process not including involving the real police. In addition, a requirement for a wide range of new "awareness" programs, and generally a big shift AWAY from reporting sex crimes to the police and for the college to make it there business to be dealt with by the COLLEGE's "disciplinary process" for students, and ONLY students. I'm sure any LEO or DA will tell the last thing they want is a lot of non-LE untrained people running their victim/witness through a lot of meaningless "interviews" and "outreach" etc to jumble up the story and just plain wear out the victim/witness....and give the DEFENSE lawyers a whole new category of people who can only confirm the victim "Changed their story". Did anyone notice all this "No means no" has no real 'teeth' outside COLLEGE "student disciplinary action" whatsoever, and no effect on real rape cases, and ONLY requires colleges get heavily into muddling up rape cases and creating new whole depts to do that? Remember in Animal House when the Dean put them on "Double Secret Probation"? It sure as hell doesn't require the police to do anything, much less "take rape reports more seriously". What it does is give them a whole new level of reason to "victim dump" rape victims onto some vague group of college staffers.
__________________
Am I a good shot!?!, YEAH I'M A GOOD SHOT!....i just got bad aim Last edited by The Last American Hero; 12-20-2014 at 5:16 PM.. |
#152
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As someone who has worked in teaching at a UC school, we never sign a binding agreement to refrain from sexual relations with students. And we definitely never sign anything that says that such relations will result in a loss of employment. The union would never tolerate it. If a professor or TA had sex with a student in a course he was teaching or helping to teach, he would be required to report the relationship to the university and then the university would take measures to make sure that he and the student were shuffled around so that he was no longer in charge of teaching her or grading her assignments. There were no binding restrictions against consensual sex with any student whom a TA/professor was not teaching. That was as of roughly two years ago; maybe it's changed but I sincerely doubt it. Last edited by QQQ; 12-21-2014 at 5:41 PM.. |
#153
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
problem I have with the issue is gender biase. remorse the next day, claiming could not consent due to alcohol or drugs, and starting a nightmare for the other party ie boy. Most likely both were doing same drugs or alcohol, if both parties were not able to consent then who is guilty of a crime? I would hope the new law would not criminalize young adults who made equally bad choices. Instead I would hope this law would enable the justice system to catch a predator who truly took advantage of another. The real trick here is telling the diffeence. |
#154
|
||||
|
||||
Something must be wrong with my CGN. Posts that weren't there before, suddenly appear. Interesting...
This problem is as old as civilization itself, 14,500 yrs as of the latest info, he said she said is the problem. I find it hilarious that those in charge of setting policy, who come up with this crap, are all the same who before preached free love/free sex 40+ yrs ago. The same ones who preached that "government should not enforce morals" are trying to rectify the problems they created by creating new morals/standards. In this case, a contract of sex. Anyone want to make some bucks off this? Simple, a voice activated/recognition contract on a smart phone app. Have the "couple" speak a few phrases/terms into the app to validate and recognize their voice pattern along with agreement to its terms to have sex. Every time they get into a place where sex might occur, launch the app on 1 or more phones, set it down, and record every ooooh and awwww as well as every yes or no. Have it uploaded in real time to a secure site that sequesters the data as well as authenticates it. The recording/data can not be changed or copied for any reason but can only be listen to by the parties involved. I'm sure it can be done,anyone willing to write the contract and the app? 60/40 partnership, I get the 40 since I didn't write the program and contract, only had the idea.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion. NRA Patron Member CRPA 5 yr Member "...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A man (college boy) can be plastered drunk and take a willing woman home from the bar & have consensual sex, but said woman (having but a drink the night before) can later have regrets and claim that she had been taken advantage of....... unfortunately I've seen this far to many times. That's not to say that campus rape is fictional, fact is it's much more prevalent than we would like to believe. But young adults all must take responsibility for their actions male & female alike. There can't be standard for one & not the other! If an "adult" goes home with another "adult" free of will (regardless of how much that individual chose to drink) then those adults have to live with the choices they made and accept responsibility, and not try to blame their actions on another.
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Now that we (hopefully) understand this new law is all about vague undefined college staffers handing out punishments (including expulsion) for perfectly legal non-criminal off campus behavior of students at public colleges (see my last post)......
is that legal and what if any legal off campus activities by students are not fair game for DeLeon/Brown to regulate with threat of expulsion or other punishments? (given that sexual activity has a pretty high level of "expectation of privacy") Does everyone understand that a "violation" of DeLeon/Brown's "Yes means yes" will go absolutely nowhere in criminal or civil court???.....and could ONLY have meaning in their new Kollege Kampus Kangroo Kourts? Why can't they also require off campus students to utter certain required words in situations with much lower Expectations of Privacy, such as ordering food or other retail purchases, or face Kollege Kampus Kangroo Kourt? While colleges do seem to be able to require certain actions off campus on a whim, those all seem to be certain tasks that need to be completed and submitted, not Talmudic "Rules for Daily Living". Jerry Brown attended a Catholic Seminary in hopes of becoming a Priest, with his father as Governor, and apparently he never 'consummated' any of the 'relationships' with any of the high profile women, including the super hot young Linda Ronstadt. DeLeon was the first member of his family to graduate from High School. Neither has the background to know what is and isn't appropriate for the government to regulate or how to do it, especially the sexual behavior of semi-educated hetero-sexual modern Americans. Again if you actually read the new law this thread is about, you will see it will require every college to set up a nice big new dept and create lots of new "Low Tech Careers" without any Adult Supervision or LOSE FUNDING. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967 Degrade learning, have crappy programs, generally start to suck real bad? That wont make them lose funding.
__________________
Am I a good shot!?!, YEAH I'M A GOOD SHOT!....i just got bad aim Last edited by The Last American Hero; 12-22-2014 at 11:19 AM.. |
#157
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I hope you're kidding and I'm misreading/missing the sarcasm.
__________________
In Memorium Corporal Bradley Coy 06/08/92-10/24/14 A Girl & A Gun Women's Shooting League - Burbank Chapter |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Do you have a verifiable alibi to account for ever single minute of everyday of your life? Yes, I will generally agree that avoiding certain things and situations is goes a long way, but it is not a 100% guarantee. Because I have come under false accusation before.....by a woman who was trying to make me a scapegoat for her failing job performance. I was accused of a certain action (non-sexual btw) on a certain day at a certain place. I was later able to so thru documentable proof that I was no where near that place on that day. Then she tried to change her story. She was fired shortly there after but I still had to endure the stress of the entire situation.....and my only "sin".....working in the same building.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance" Quote for the day: Quote:
|
#159
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
there is a lot of on the job accusations that are non-sexual by both genders. the relevance to this discussion escapes me. if I lived in such fear as some of you i'd never leave the house. the what if's and could happens surround everyone all the time. just driving down the road can get one accused of a misdeed. live in fear or don't.
__________________
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't have the penal code on hand, but here's a thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...trafamilial+18
__________________
My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them! Quote:
Own An 80%? CLICK HERE! Kevin de Leon, on minority women and profiling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|