I think this is pretty much all that will happen.

6/17/2007 4:38:47 PM

^unfortunately i would have to agree with you. It's a shame...Nifong and Magnum should go to jail.


BTW...what ever happened to Magnum...shouldn't she be on trail now?

6/17/2007 7:58:42 PM

I heard that the defense lawyers were going to seek criminal charges against Nifong, or at least some kind of civil litigation. With the momentum shifted in the other direction I bet they are going to try for something. Now I am not sure if the law in NC will allow them that commonsense response to this clearly "criminal" act by Nifong.

I will grant that this is not a liberal/conservative issue in total, but you cannot deny the willingness for Duke to basically side with the accuser early on. They should have had those student's back better, I cannot help think it had something to do with liberal white guilt. If you deny the existence of said phenomenon then try watching some Seinfeld then get back to me.

6/17/2007 9:48:57 PM

Quote :

"I will grant that this is not a liberal/conservative issue in total, but you cannot deny the willingness for Duke to basically side with the accuser early on. They should have had those student's back better, I cannot help think it had something to do with liberal white guilt. If you deny the existence of said phenomenon then try watching some Seinfeld then get back to me."

This is ridiculous. It could very well have been because prosecutors do not often come right out and proclaim the guilt of those accused - that was a very strong statement. One of his ethical violations was tainting the jury pool...

"liberal white guilt"
...laugh

maybe your post had something to do with "unintelligent conservative plugs"

6/17/2007 11:03:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm a liberal and I hang out with a generally exclusively liberal crowd, and I don't know a single person who thought along the Jesse Jackson route that this was all some kind of 'we're trying to put the black-man down'"

agentlion

What about the Duke 88?

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/533242.html

Original Duke 88 ad:

http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm

Duke 88 refuses to apologize:

http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2007 11:41:48 PM

^ fuckign hippies

6/17/2007 11:44:25 PM

^^^see, I feel no need to call liberals stupid, yet in almost every post debating conservative/liberal in general you guys feel the need to insert "unintelligent" into the equation. Oh well I guess you got me, all conservative ideals are only for illogical commoners. Its not like there are different philosophies which stem from different basic assumptions about human behaviour and both camps are logical to a degree yet differ on the basics. Nope, liberals smart, conservatives stupid. Thanks. that helped a lot.


Duke didn't have to wait long before the Duke boys made their iron-clad alibi know to the general public. That info was out early on. Any amount of common sense would have suggested that Duke should defend those boys. But, how would that look for them to defend the white rich boys against the poor black accuser ? Political correctness demands that Duke side with the minority, logic be damned.

Oh, and if it has nothing to do with liberal/conservative then please find me for where there were
conservatives backing the accuser, folks who take politcal correctness seriously are by in large of a
liberal political philosophy.

I am of course not disputing that there were many liberals who saw this case for what it was from the beginning, it is the ones who were blinded by their own preconceptions about black/white that
I wish to condemn.

6/18/2007 12:35:51 AM

^^^

That original ad and the response are such bullshit. The response says "oh, you took it out of context, we weren't saying they were guilty" OH REALLY? Well then how come EVERY FUCKING QUOTE by someone in that ad is about blacks being wrongly persecuted by whites or how how it would be different if the guys were black. give me a fucking break.

6/18/2007 12:55:46 AM

^ Yep.

6/18/2007 12:57:58 AM

Quote :

"and I don't know a single person who thought along the Jesse Jackson route that this was all some kind of 'we're trying to put the black-man down"

Quote :

"agentlion What about the Duke 88?"

umm, what about the Duke 88? i don't hang out with them.....

6/18/2007 7:11:34 AM

pretty sure this thread isn't, actually, about your group of friends, however much you may wish it was

6/18/2007 8:37:52 AM

jesus, people. get some reading comprehension skills.

1) UnderPSI said "proof that fucking liberals are ridiculous and out of control."
2) Several people - NatureNut, joe_schmoe, and myself - are self proclaimed liberals and we all stated we did not support the charges from the beginning, nor did any of my liberal friends, showing anecdotally that "fucking liberals" are not all out of control
3) hooksaw took my anecdote about me and my liberal friends as a confrontation to the point that fucking liberals are out of control by pointing to the Duke 88.
4) I said I don't care about the Duke 88. They may be mostly liberal, and they may have been outspoken in favor the charges or expelling the guys or whatever, but that doesn't have anything to do with what liberals at large feel about it, as demonstrated by several people on here.

what's the problem?

6/18/2007 10:22:05 AM

^

So, do you agree that there were many liberals--outside your allegedly unaffected social sphere--that did think "along the Jesse Jackson route"? Liberals that convicted those white student-athletes in the court of public opinion based on a general sense of "black oppression" before the accused ever had their day in court?

BTW:

Quote :

"I'm a liberal and I hang out with a generally exclusively liberal crowd. . . ."

agentlion

Way to support diversity of thought, Mr. Liberal.

6/18/2007 10:35:14 AM

Quote :

"So, do you agree that there were many liberals--outside your allegedly unaffected social sphere--that did think "along the Jesse Jackson route"? "

yes, obviously.
but to make a blanket statement about all liberals, just like making blanket statements bout conservatives, is idiotic.

6/18/2007 11:01:40 AM

Quote :

"Way to support diversity of thought, Mr. Liberal."

1. you should stay in the soap box
2. just because one hangs out with liberal people doesn't mean they aren't exposed to conservative ideas through other venues

6/18/2007 11:07:15 AM

When did this turn into a [liberal/not a liberal/what the fuck is a liberal] thread?

6/18/2007 11:14:23 AM

^^^ I never posted all liberals. Please note well that I indicated "many liberals" convicted the now-vindicated student-athletes in the court of public opinion.

^^ I simply pointed out the "generally exclusively liberal crowd" quotation. Unlike agentlion, I don't have a litmus test that "excludes" individuals with legitimate political ideologies from my social sphere. The quotation in question reveals a typical liberal paradox: I'm tolerant of everyone--as long as they agree with me.

6/18/2007 11:39:35 AM

Get back on fucking topic, asshats.

6/18/2007 1:24:56 PM

the word "all" is implicit in the sentence "proof that fucking liberals are ridiculous and out of control."
i don't chose people based on ideology. 'exclusively' was a bad term to use. it seems to work out, however, that people i meet or hang out with are generally liberal.
you know.... kind of like how all your friend are fucking retarded, right?

anyway. I'm glad (and all the evil liberal friends i have are too) that Nifong is disbarred. I'd like to see him brought up on criminal charges, which looks like it might happen.
And i don't know what should happen to Magnum, but she shouldn't get away with this either - black, white, yellow, whatever.

6/18/2007 1:43:53 PM

hahahha

6/18/2007 2:12:15 PM

Quote :

"'exclusively' was a bad term to use."

agentlion

Yes, now you have a firm grasp of the obvious.

PS: "Magnum" (sic) is incorrect, dumbass. The accuser's name is "Mangum."

This is Magnum:



And you're the fucking retard.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 2:31:33 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse

Looks like Duke coughed up some cash.

6/18/2007 4:56:40 PM

big big settlement (undisclosed amount)

6/18/2007 5:01:58 PM

^ I hope it was a lot.

Quote :

"The players' families racked up millions of dollars of legal bills in their defense, and appear likely to file a lawsuit against Nifong."

6/18/2007 5:03:15 PM

i see that hooksaw has moved intto The Lounge to flex his grammar muscles.

and insult people.

6/18/2007 5:36:18 PM

Quote :

"This is Magnum: http://murdermysteries.com/tvshows/photos/magnum.jpg"

That's not "Magnum", that's Tom Selleck.

obligatory:

6/18/2007 6:08:30 PM

come on TWW bring me the dollar amount of the settlement. I'm waiting. Any guesses, I hope it was at least 6 figures.

6/18/2007 7:29:48 PM

I'd say at least court costs + "trauma" fees, and court costs have to be at least in the millions.

6/18/2007 8:38:53 PM

http://www.courttv.com/news/duke-rape/061807_nifong_ap.html

6/18/2007 8:45:17 PM

^x5 Stop trolling me and you won't have to worry about it. Yet another worthless post from joe_shithead.

^x4 No, it's Tom Selleck in character as Magnum--just as I posted. (Just for you.)

In any event, the left-wing Group of 88 at Duke has refused to apologize to the now-vindicated student-athletes. That was the point.

6/18/2007 10:37:33 PM

What, specifically in their ad needed to be apologized for?

6/18/2007 11:03:52 PM

^ Has the Group of 88 called for or supported protests concerning the hate crime that was committed against the now-vindicated white student-athletes by the black accuser?

6/18/2007 11:51:48 PM

Did you read the non-apology?

6/18/2007 11:54:52 PM

Did you?

6/18/2007 11:55:22 PM

Yes.

Did you? Because your post doesn't make sense if you did. Their article wasn't about this specific hate crime, it was definitely spawned by this incident, but as their non-apology indicated accurately, the original ad had a more general sentiment to it. Even with one comment specifically saying:

Quote :

"If it turns out that these students are guilty..."

None of the other comments in the ad referenced the Duke Lacrosse players or the incident, only issues of racism in general.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2007 11:57:33 PM

^ Yeah--and "social disasters." I'm sure most of the faculty members on the Group of 88 list are conservatives that had the best interests of those young men at heart all along.

Oh, darn, except for incidents such as this one:

Duke, Ex-Lacrosse Player Settle Suit Over Grade

Quote :

"Durham — A former Duke University lacrosse player has settled his lawsuit against the school and a former instructor over a failing grade he claimed he received because he was a member of the team. Kyle Dowd graduated in May 2006, two months after a woman said she was sexually assaulted at a lacrosse team party. The allegations set off a tumultuous few weeks in Durham, with almost daily protests by people who criticized lacrosse team members for a pattern of rowdy behavior."

Quote :

"The lawsuit, which named the Durham school and visiting professor Kim Curtis, alleged Curtis discriminated against Dowd when she gave him an F in a course on politics and literature. The lawsuit, which claimed fraud and negligence, said he had gotten Cs on his assignments in the class."

Quote :

"Curtis was among 88 faculty members who signed their names in April 2006 to a full-page advertisement in Duke's student newspaper titled 'What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?' 'Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday [sic] now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism,' the ad read, in part."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1412632/

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 12:15 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 12:12:23 AM

^ That has no bearing on the issue of the 88 apologizing.

That guy should apologize (if he hasn't already-- the details of that case weren't released) for unfairly failing that student.

And i'm guessing you posted that last part because you think it supports your side, but it cuts both ways. That person was ALSO saying if the guys were found innocent, it doesn't mean race isn't an issue at Duke.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 12:32:39 AM

wait a sec. i'm confused. what is the issue with the so-called "Duke 88?" advert?

it was just a call for the community to consider the larger issues. not targeted at anyone.

most thoughtful persons -- liberal or conservative -- wanted the case to be decided fairly and impartially in the courts, not the media ... no matter what your position or non-position was on the accused or the accuser, this shit with race and sex and violence and discrimination and socio-economic disparity was blown wide open. these issues are and were not new. its not like this sort of thing had never happened before. the problem was, such an event was conceivable.

in any event, there was nothing wrong with the "Duke 88" ad. if anything, it was a call for careful and neutral consideration -- not a rush to judgment.

where is there any support or condemnation for any of parties in the then-expanding legal/media circus?

you people complaining about this, have you even read the ad?

http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm

theres nothing there to apologize for.

6/19/2007 1:06:29 AM

Quote :

"there was nothing wrong with the "Duke 88" ad. if anything, it was a call for careful and neutral consideration"

Are you seriously saying this?


Let's look at some of the quotes...

Quote :

"These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman"

Quote :

"If it turns out that these students are guilty, I want them expelled."

(the rest of the quote never mentions if they aren't)

Quote :

"Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night"

(no comment about being white)

Quote :

"If something like this happens to me . . . What would be used against me--my clothing?"

(obviously referring to being raped)

Quote :

"I was talking to a white woman student who was asking me “Why do people --and she meant black people -- make race such a big issue?” They don’t see race. They just don’t see it."

(again, only mentions the difficulties of being black, no comments about being white)

Quote :

"You go to a party, you get grabbed, you get propositioned,"

(again from the woman's point of view)

Quote :

"no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humanity before us "

(AGAIN, a quote about the suffering of the "victim" crystal mangum)

Quote :

"I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black"

(again about how white guys raped a black girl)



Show me one quote in that about being falsely accused of rape or one quote about being racially discriminated against because you're a rich White male.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 3:57 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 3:55:16 AM

^ Haha, are you kidding?

Oppression of rich white males is not a problem in this country. You can protest about this if you want, but pretty much everyone is going to laugh in your face, including the rich white males.

That's probably the dumbest thing i'll read all week, and that's even including a lot of hooksaw's posts.

6/19/2007 4:09:57 AM

I didn't say oppression, I said discrimination. A good example would be assuming someone committed a rape because they're White and have more money than you.

6/19/2007 4:21:03 AM

oh, Gawd

are you serious?

you just defended your claim that white males are "discriminated" against....

with some sort of bizarre scenario that rapists are rich??

wtf??? go to fucking bed, man.

and wait for that shit to wear off before you post again.




[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 4:31 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 4:31:35 AM

^^ Well change oppression to discrimination.

Do you REALLY think it would make sense for someone to campaign about the discrimination to rich white men?

6/19/2007 6:44:57 AM

so what kind of punishment is the accuser going to get? she needs to be punished along with nifong.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 9:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 9:01:13 AM

6/19/2007 9:19:15 AM

Quote :

"you just defended your claim that white males are "discriminated" against.... with some sort of bizarre scenario that rapists are rich??"

No, I said that people assumed that the three students raped the girl because they were rich. It's a classic scenario where people assume that rich people always are bad and always try to buy their way out of situations.

In this scenario their money was the only reason they didn't go to jail. People assumed that because the three students were rich that the stripper would not get a fair trial. This was actually used against them because they were thought to be guilty from beginning by the media and by the community. If they hadn't have been rich, they'd be in jail.

You said the Group of 88 article was not racist and that it was neutral. It's obvious to see that all of the quotes in that article are either from women or Black people. All of the quotes are about gender discrimination against women or racial discrimination against Blacks. How is that neutral and fair at all? Where are the quotes from people about the scarlett letter that males have to wear after even being accused of rape even if they are found innocent later? Where are the quotes about the absolute racial shitstorm that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton kicked up, turning the entire community against three innocent students simply because they were White? Where are the quotes about people being innocent until proven guilty?

6/19/2007 2:38:51 PM

Quote :

"No, I said that people assumed that the three students raped the girl because they were rich. It's a classic scenario where people assume that rich people always are bad and always try to buy their way out of situations. In this scenario their money was the only reason they didn't go to jail."

So you're saying they did buy their way out of this situation?

Also, the case put up my Mangum was pathetically weak. It was only Nifong's lying that kept the case going. They would have been found innocent regardless of if they were rich (and, I don't think all 3 of the accused are rich anyway, are they?).

Quote :

"People assumed that because the three students were rich that the stripper would not get a fair trial. This was actually used against them because they were thought to be guilty from beginning by the media and by the community."

The legal side of this worked out as best as it could. Nifong was found out, disbarred and fired, and the guys were found innocent. It was mostly the media that portrayed them as guilty for a short while in the beginning, then backing off.

Quote :

" If they hadn't have been rich, they'd be in jail."

In this situation, I don't think so. The evidence is pretty clear.

Quote :

"You said the Group of 88 article was not racist and that it was neutral. It's obvious to see that all of the quotes in that article are either from women or Black people. All of the quotes are about gender discrimination against women or racial discrimination against Blacks. How is that neutral and fair at all? Where are the quotes from people about the scarlett letter that males have to wear after even being accused of rape even if they are found innocent later? Where are the quotes about the absolute racial shitstorm that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton kicked up, turning the entire community against three innocent students simply because they were White? Where are the quotes about people being innocent until proven guilty?"

If the point of the ad was to show that racism and sexism exists, then it makes absolutely no sense to talk about rare and isolated cases (like this one) of people being treated negatively because of being rich white males. Racism and sexism are FAR bigger issues.

They're not going to have quotes about Al Sharpton because the point of the ad wasn't to comment on the LaCrosse case. It's not going to have stuff about people being accused of rape but found innocent later, because at the time of the article, they had not been found innocent.

The ad only uses the LaCrosse case as a jumping point, it doesn't harp on the LaCrosse players at all.

6/19/2007 2:48:31 PM

I know that it would be pointless to have quotes like that, however I am just trying to prove that the Group of 88 article was indeed biased. In a situation like that where three male students are literally fighting for their lives, it doesn't help to splatter campus with:

Quote :

"These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman"

and I think it was extremely out of line for them to do so.

6/19/2007 2:52:32 PM

^^ Can you prove that the families of the now-vindicated Duke lacrosse players are "rich"?

BTW, Duke is paying everybody off to make this shit go away:

Duke reaches settlement with former lacrosse coach Pressler

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. -- Duke University has reached a financial settlement with Mike Pressler, the former men's lacrosse coach who lost his job in the wake of since-debunked rape allegations involving his team. Though the university would not disclose terms of the deal, a school official confirmed Thursday that Duke reached 'an amicable, fair financial settlement' with Pressler a few months ago."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2897185



[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 2:59:20 PM

^ Did you even read my post? You have the worst reading comprehension of anyone on this board... I specifically said this:

Quote :

"(and, I don't think all 3 of the accused are rich anyway, are they?). "

^^ It's biased in context, but there's still not anything specific they could apologize for. Anything they should apologize for, most of the news media and a good handful of posters here should apologize for as well.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 3:03:54 PM