So after reading this and getting my daily dose of loss-of-faith-in-humanity, I can't help but call up the stripper's lawyers and congratulate them on doing such a bang-up job of jury selection. One woman, eleven males over 50.
buy cymbalta online buy cymbalta no prescription
Awesome!
In case you're wondering why "She was a slut, she wanted it" still works as a defense, well, I think this pretty much explains it.
online pharmacy augmentin no prescription
liz says:
Jury of her peers, indeed.
Anonymous says:
What is she so pissed about? She had a suspended license and managed to not get a ticket. Sounds pretty groovy to me. Sometimes ya just hafta jerk on a dick to get what ya want…………..
Ed says:
Well, Mr. Anonymous Commentary, I suppose that's "one way to look at it."
Much in the same way that "I hate jews" is "one way to look at" religious diversity.
Samantha says:
"Pretty groovy?" Are you fucking kidding me? Do you find that jerking on a dick tends to get you what you want?
No wonder you didn't leave your name, asshole.
Christina says:
I feel a blog rant coming on…
Right now, I'm spluttering too hard to say anything coherent.
Mike says:
>What is she so pissed about?
Read the (full) article again; she was pulled over twice by the same cop. Besides being improbable, (like the ~ .2% change of a 1 female jury) it also involved an admitted escalation of threats for sex.
It was quite reasonable for her to assume that she (and other strippers) were being targeted and stalked – something the followup investigation proved. He's lucky she reported him and got him fired before he went even further off the deep end.
Anonymous says:
Wow. I figured my sarcasm would be pretty clear. My apologies. I don't post my name because none of you know me; I figured there was no point. I had Ed for a class a couple years ago. Just enjoy reading the site sometimes. Gotta get my fix of Ed's awesome comments from time to time ya know. Anyway, take it easy….
Anonymous says:
Wow. I figured my sarcasm would be pretty obvious. My apologies. Was probably too serious of a topic to joke about. I don't leave my name because none of you know who I am; I figure there is no point. I had Ed for a class a couple years ago. He was hilarious and so is this site. Just like to read it from time to time. Although, I am a bit surprised by this reaction. Molesting, or attempting to molest, underage boys is OK to joke about when it is a Republican doing it; (I agree by the way, it is something to joke about) however, an off color joke about this situation is not OK. Go figure. Anyway, I didn't mean to offend.
Anonymous says:
Sorry for the double, now triple, post. For some reason it seemed as if my first post didn't work, so I typed a new one.
Samantha says:
Off-color? I think the difference in "jokability" is, at heart, the gross societal inequity in the ways men and women are treated in cases of sexuality, along with the consentual (or lack thereof) nature of the offenses in question. Haggard's male prostitute didn't claim he was molested as did the woman who was jerked upon by the police officer.
In summary: gay christian exchanging meth for sex with a male prostitute and then going into gay rehab and taking an on-line psychology course with his supportive christian wife to absolve himself = funny. woman being stalked by a police officer with a history of stalking strippers, being threatened and ejaculated on by said police officer, and then being denied a fair trial by a jury of her peers = not at all funny.
Anonymous says:
You don't understand my joke at all. I am making fun of the people who would actually think they way I typed. I am not making fun of the situation. I am making fun of morons like that defense lawyer that seem to think a woman is asking for it simply because she is a stripper/dressed a certain way/etc. Really, it seems to me that this is the type of humor often used on this site. People often say seemingly "offensive" thing, but in reality they are actually making fun of the idiots who truly think that way. Again, sorry I got you all bothered. But really, that wasn't my intention. Try to control your emotions and look at what I said and compare it to past posts on this site and I think you will see that my "humor" wasn't all that out of line with the majority of this site.
Anonymous says:
An example of what I mean Samantha:
1. The media are duty-bound to refer to the accuser solely as "the stripper" (Hey viewers! Hint! Hint! Get it? Strippers are whores. They want it, and even if they don't, they have it coming.) rather than as "alleged victim", "accuser", or even "woman.
Ed added the part in parentheses. Obviously he is not really saying he thinks that way. He is making fun of the idiots that do. I'll grant you Ed's had more surrounding context to make this clearer. But, in any event, I think what I said is in the same vein as this.