Cheerleader Kicked Off Cheerleading Squad for Refusing to Cheer, Idiocy Ensues
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Here’s what happened. A boy named Rakheem Bolton allegedly raped a girl named H.S. Bolton is a big jock on campus, on both the basketball and football team, and she is a cheerleader. So she is at a basketball game and the rest of the squad starts to make a cheer specifically about Bolton and she refuses to go along. She sits down and crosses her arms.
Now first, I have every sympathy in the world for this girl’s refusal to cheer. We can say absolutely for a fact that the man did in fact assault her. What we are uncertain of is any kind of rape or sexual assault. And I will not fault the girl for asserting she was raped in the face of a justice system unwilling to prosecute. So if she was my daughter, and she refused to cheer the guy, I would absolutely stand behind that. The established fact that this man assaulted her (non-sexually) is enough to justify her standing up for herself in that fashion all by itself. Her assertion that she was raped only adds to that justification.
But she doesn’t have the right to remain a cheerleader.
When you ask to be a cheerleader, you are asking to be the spokesperson for an entire school. This is not a matter of free speech; indeed, it is a matter of tightly controlled, choreographed speech. A cheerleader has no more right to pick and choose which cheers to engage in than a member of the school choir has a right to start belting out Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in the middle of a rendition of Silver Bells. If she just attending the game as a private citizen and she refuses to join other audience members in cheering for this assailant, that is her right. And if she is “off duty” and she decides to tell anyone who would listen that she was raped, more power to her (and it is her legal right). But when she is on duty, it is the state that determines her message.
So she sued for an alleged violation of her First Amendment rights. She and her parents also allege a number of other causes of action. For instance, she alleged that supposed defamation by school officials violated her right to bodily integrity, which the court pointed out was not even implicated when the harms were psychological only. (She might have tried to sue separately for defamation.) She alleged that being a cheerleader was a protected property interest, a claim negated by precedent. She alleged sex discrimination but didn’t even allege that their decisions were motivated by gender.
But the issue everyone is focusing on is the claim that the first amendment meant a cheerleader had a right to decide who and what to cheer for. I mean this isn’t even a tough case. Imagine it is the Texas Longhorns v. Maryland Terrapins. Imagine you are a cheerleader attending UT. Do you think you have the right to get up there in a Longhorns cheerleading uniform and start shouting “Fear the Turtle!!!”? Are you fraking kidding me? So let’s not pretend that a cheerleader has a first amendment right to say (or not say) whatever she wants while on duty.
So she lost the case (read for yourself, here), and according to the San Francisco Chronicle she was sanctioned for bringing it in the first place. Which if true sounds exactly right.
But the basic legal knowledge or critical thinking skills needed to recognize how frivolous this case is, is almost completely absent from many liberals’ reaction on the subject. For instance, at Alan Colmes’ Liberaland “The River Wanders” writes a headline that says it all: Court Says Sexually Assaulted Child Should Still Cheer For Her Attacker. Um, you forgot the word “allegedly.” Not that I think Mr. Bolton will sue you, but still… Later of course she throws in a few “allegeds” but you can’t unring that bell. This person continues:
H.S. may have chosen to be on the cheer squad, but she did not choose to be attacked, and the school is responsible to protect her from continued emotional distress. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the United States Supreme Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.” Apparently that is no longer true.
Sheesh. You don’t check your rights at the schoolhouse door, but you do consent to be a mouthpiece for the state when you pick up the pom-poms.
Think Progress uses this decision to launch into a generalized diatribe against the Fifth Circuit. I won’t deal with their allegations because I have seen enough of Think Progress to know that all of their allegations are presumptively untrue. But for some reason they think the Fifth Circuit’s supposed corruption in dealing with oil companies has anything to do with this case. Go figure.
At the same time Melissa McEwan says simply “Rage. Seeth. Boil.” And Echidne elaborates:
What all this ultimately signals is the lesser value of women, the lesser power of women to get justice and the general view that what women are for is sex. That being raped can destroy the victim’s mental health for years if not for decades is just her problem but possible false rape accusations destroy the accused man’s career and life prospects.
Mmm, yeah, that is it.
That all being said, if I was the lawyer for the school, I would have some pretty harsh words for the school too, behind closed doors. The best legal victories are the ones where you don’t have any lawsuit at all, to mangle some advice from Sun Tzu. The fact is that the school took sides in something that it shouldn’t have bothered to take sides in. It might be permissible under the Constitution, but it was stupid, too. This entire case could have been avoided if they simply told the cheerleading squad to either 1) stop cheering for that specific player or 2) stop cheering for any specific player. Or they could have let this one girl sitting things out slide. Instead they asked a person who had been assaulted to cheer for her assailant. There is no part of that last sentence that is 1) illegal, or 2) intelligent.
So obviously those who limit their criticism to the conduct of the school have a valid point, including Linda Lowen, Ms. Magazine, Change.org or Charlie Zengers.
At the same time, I also blame the family’s lawyer for this silliness, too. You can’t expect families to be rational about stuff like this. But you can and should expect the lawyer to serve as a gatekeeper. This lawyer should have said, “we have decent state-based claims, for instance on defamation and battery. But we have no realistic cause of action on the federal level. So it’s state court or nothing.” And if they continued to insist, he should have said “no.” I do believe that generally lawyers should not be faulted for going to bat for their clients, but this is ridiculous. Indeed his clients were so ill served that they ended up owing the state money. A better lawyer wouldn’t have let it come to that.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I’m totally on her side. I hate rapists.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:34 amchristoph
and you know he is guilty, how exactly?
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:42 amMassive institutional support for a rapist? In America? I’m shocked.
imdw (e6d25a) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:44 amI hate rapists, too, but the girl has no First Amendment right to cheer. Let’s not abuse the Constitution as well as the girl.
CBYoungblood (febebf) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:45 am“mouthpiece for the state,” Aaron?
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:46 amI don’t.
He may not be guilty of rape. I know women are entirely capable of alleging rape where none occurred.
But he’s guilty of assaulting her as you point out. The kind of guy that would assault a girl is not someone whose word I would be inclined to take in a “he said, she said”.
But I definitely support her for not cheering the guy who assaulted her. Screw the school for trying to make her do this. People should be fired.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:49 amOh, watch out! inlovewithmultipleDemocraticwussies is getting up on his soap box.
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:52 amThere are still many people who adore the likes of OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton. The media and NOW covered for Clinton’s maltreatment of women. OJ had his “blackness” and jock status. What do we know about the jock in the present case? Must we assume the cheerleader got what was coming to her? Seems like all kinds of double standards out there. I think it would be bother me little if I were convinced this allegation were true and someone either raped him or bobbitted him. Not saying it is right, but might send a signal and if rapists were actually castrated (not just chemically) the incidences of recidivism would be nil, no?
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:52 amWell that’s swell. At least he doesn’t hold any hard feelings toward her.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:54 amWow, Aaron. This is a real test of people’s resolve.
I hate to admit that her claims are frivilous.
I see this as a young woman whose team-mates were probably completely aware of what they were pushing her towards… either you cheer for this specific guy or you are off the team.
I have a really hard time not agreeing with Christoph, and just assuming this rape occurred. Which is why we have a legal system to prevent lynchings. Things looked awful for other so-called rapists who turned out to be not-rapists.
Her claims seem frivolous to me, too. I wonder if the lawyer wanted to pile them up into an ugly mess, hoping for a quick settlement. The school was right to fight this in court, and I wish everyone could and would do that when faced with an ugly public relations disaster lawsuit.
I still think the school deserves heavy criticism. It appears some of the girls were trying to be nasty to her. Their coach could have used some common sense to forbid them from cheering for this one guy. Instead, they take her off the team. Which may be their right but I think they should be fired because it seems they suck at their jobs.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:55 amWe should be careful here.
Guys who are falsely accused of rape are often accused because the claim would be believable. For example, a guy who did something like battery or a drunk or, in the Duke Lacrosse case, someone who hired some strippers.
It’s usually not the case that the person falsely accused of rape has impeccable credibility.
Aaron’s right that at least many of these legal claims are frivolous, and I think it’s good of the school to let the justice system process this.
I still think they should have used common sense and forbade the team from cheering for this guy. Fair or not. I suspect the rest of the team was trying to be nasty, as young ladies often are.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:00 am“Imagine it is the Texas Longhorns v. Maryland Terrapins. Imagine you are a cheerleader attending UT. Do you think you have the right to get up there in a Longhorns cheerleading uniform and start shouting “Fear the Turtle!!!”?”
This seems to miss the point about the rape. So long as we can change up the hypo, lets see how far we can go. Instead, let’s imagine that she’s not a cheerleader, but she’s a pharmacist. And the basketball player doesn’t want to be cheered for, but wants to get an abortion pill. But our pharmacist doesn’t want to do that part of the job.
imdw (8bb588) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:00 amDefending stupid behavior under the claim of “I had a right to do it” is the American way. (see example: the current POTUS)
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:03 amAaron’s posts have far below the bar set on this site over the years, but this one takes the cake. He’s saying that the right of a violent thug to be cheered by his innocent victim trumps her right to silence….and that if she doesn’t agree, she forfeits her right to be a cheerleader. Hey genius, how about the thug forfeit HIS right to play on the team? (Patrick: This guy’s stinking up your joint.)
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:05 amCase in point: comment #12
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:05 amIdiocy is ensuing HERE as well.
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:09 amThe dimwit quotient seems to be increasing.
Aaron’s posts have far below the bar set on this site over the years, but this one takes the cake
How was that again ?
Mike K (568408) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:11 amThat’s because whether or not she was raped is not the point of whether or not she should comply with directions from her team.
It’s not known if she was raped.
So it seems to miss the point, for you, because you don’t process information fairly.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:14 amlet me clear out a number of criticisms.
i did not say the school acted wisely. in fact i said they were stupid.
i said they were acting within their legal rights.
Which is something i made pretty clear in the post.
imdw
so a cheerleader has no right to speak freely when on duty… unless she feels really, really strongly about it?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:15 amKevin Stafford belives that we have an inalienable right to say, “we have spirit, yes we do; we have spirit, how ’bout you?”
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:20 am“so a cheerleader has no right to speak freely when on duty… unless she feels really, really strongly about it?”
I would say more that the burden that the state places when forcing speech is different depending on the content of the speech and the persons’ subjective state, and should be part of the analysis. So too should be our objective reaction to this. So I see a difference between:
A bigot refusing to cheer for a muslim.
A victim refusing to cheer for their attacker.
and
A MD fan refusing to cheer for Texas.
Also different is the accommodation that the state can make. It is harder for the state to deal with a cheerleader that wants to let out cheers — like your example — than one that merely wants to sit down.
imdw (0275b8) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:25 amThe alleged rapist needs to just call her a whore, then the left will jump to his defense. I think we’ve found Obama’s primary challenger for 2012!
Darin H (c335c2) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:28 amDustin
I think what you said at #10 is about right.
i think the way to think about it is to mentally imagine two scenarios. One what if he is guilty. and the other is, what if he is innocent.
And i believe both to be a realistic scenario. i mean pleading guilty to a lesser charge is a measure of how much you fear conviction on the greater charge. Now, some of the coverage has suggested that this was a white girl. so black guy accused of raping a white girl. Even if that place is a post-racial utopia, history alone might feed his fear and lead him to plead guilty when he shouldn’t. And i know alot of lawyer, when his or her client is merely facing probation (as he was there) who have said, “just plead guilty and get on with your life.” he is rightfully barred from denying he committed assault. but i won’t assume he was guilty of more. bluntly i don’t halfway enough information to know.
But you are reasonable to say the odds are against him.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:29 amDarin
Now, now, that will only happen if the alleged victim turns out to be a republican or a conservative.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:31 amIf “your” team is giving inhumane and reprehensible directions in order to humiliate you and traumatise you further, should you comply with them?
In what work place would it be appropriate (or even not evil) for management to direct an employee to specifically and individually commend a person who had criminally assaulted the employee?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:34 amNope. Those instructions were stupid. She did the right thing refusing them. And the people giving those instructions, or the coaches somehow allowing them (I grant this is their responsibility) suck at their jobs and shouldn’t have them anymore.
I already said that.
She did the right thing, if she was raped, and refused to cheer her rapist. The legal claims are still frivolous. If I demand you insult your mother, you are right to refuse… you are not right to sue me and take my house and car and kill my dog.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:39 amChristoph,
> If “your” team is giving inhumane and reprehensible directions in order to humiliate you and traumatise you further, should you comply with them?
I don’t know that they are doing this to humiliate her or traumatize her further, or if that is only the result of their decisions. but as far as the first amendment is concerned, the answer is she can either comply or quit.
> In what work place would it be appropriate (or even not evil) for management to direct an employee to specifically and individually commend a person who had criminally assaulted the employee?
…in which you get confused between what is wrong and what is unconstitutional.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:39 amAnd it’s possible he didn’t rape her.
Probably much more possible than a lot of our imaginations are prepared to allow.
We see an innocent girl being humiliated and traumatized, and a horrible monster jock getting away with a heinous act. This is why the accusation of rape is so powerful.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:41 amHe’s been convicted of a crime of violence. Why is this kid still playing high school basketball at all? He should have been removed from the team the second he plead guilty.
The school was morally wrong to do as it did.
As for legally, I’m not sure the answer is quite as clear as Aaron thinks it is. Sure, a school is well within its legal rights to require cheerleaders to cheer for THEIR team, and not the other team. But the girl didn’t cheer for the other team; she merely refused to participate in a cheer for one particular player.
We know that a policeman cannot be fired for refusing to support, publicly, the police chief in his reelection race. We know that school children cannot be punished for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance. How is dismissal from the squad not a punishment? Is it inherent in the responsibility of the cheerleading team to cheer for the individual players as well as the team?
The court says, without any analysis or explanation, that her refusal to cheer for the criminal was in violation of her contract with the squad. What exactly are the requirements of the contract? What words are they contractually entitled to make her say? Frankly, I don’t see how you can give a proper legal answer to the lawsuit without consideration of these questions.
I assume we would agree that the school cannot force her to say just anything it wants as a cheerleader, yes? I mean, if the school decided it wanted to promote tolerance today, and thus all cheers would begin with “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed was his prophet,” she would have a First Amendment right to not say that, wouldn’t she, and the school wouldn’t even be able to kick her off the squad for refusing to say that, right?
PatHMV (f7ac31) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:41 amI’m not confused, Aaron. Screw the constitution. She did the right thing.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:41 amInsofar as you’re saying this to argue against anyone here… yes, you are very confused.
This may be an example where you didn’t bother to understand the person you’re disagreeing with in your quest to prove you’re better.
At any rate, you may have just condemned an innocent man. Don’t short change our civil rights just because you think it makes you noble. It’s actually just as lazy as not bothering to understand what you’re arguing against (in this case, that if we leave constitutionality aside and just look to the cheer, the instructions here were wrong… but since she sued for constitutional issues, the constitution matters).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:47 amThat it’s not its purpose at all.
No, he’s proven guilty in a court of law. Even if he only assaulted her, who is going to individually cheer someone that assaulted them? What 16-year old girl should take being assaulted by an older, bigger athlete so much in stride that she should be forced by her school to cheer him by name?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:52 amAnd yeah, that’s rhetorical.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:52 amYes, the lawsuit is frivolous, but so is cheer leading.
MaaddMaaxx (206a3d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:53 amI have to wonder how legitimate her claims are if the other cheerleaders did not back her up and not cheer for this clown?
Along those same lines, why would she WANT to be part of a team that failed to back her up?
To rephrase what someone said above, why did the college not suspend or expel this clown if the assault was a known fact, let alone the rape?
There is a damning dearth of common sense all the way around in this story.
It’s annoying that crimes do not lead to being kicked off all extracurricular activities. But it doesn’t pertain to his willingness to play basketball that he broke the law. It does pertain to the girl’s willingness to be a cheerleader that she won’t make this cheer. It seems like ridiculous overkill to kick her off the team with her explanation… but her refusal relates to her agreement to cheer in a way his battery does not relate to his sports.
A lot of schools have to deal with kids who break the rules without kicking them off every club automatically. It’s not as though the school was saying her behavior was worse than his, and use some badness-threshold test. they didn’t even know this cheer scandal would erupt when opting to keep the man on the team (assuming they were aware of the assault… which I do).
Who is suing who, here? Who is trying to force who? Her lawyer is raising the constitutional claims, not the school.
I hope the people who kicked her off instead of working out a better solution lose their jobs. But this girl’s civil rights were not infringed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:56 amI haven’t seen the ruling. Can you link it? It matters that you’re saying he was only assaulting her. If he didn’t strike her (battery), then I think you’re out of line.
I think just about every 16 year old has to deal with bullies. If that’s all you’re talking about, then I don’t get the ‘humiliated and traumatized’ claim of yours. Maybe if you think he battered her… show me your link.
I think we could still come up with the same common sense solution if we’re only talking about an intimidating jock bully, but that’s a commonplace issue for schoolkids. It’s different from rape.
And I’m very curious if you can come up with an honest reconciliation of your recent claim, that you’re not condemning this man for more than assault, with comment #1 in this thread. I suspect you changed your argument in an ad hoc fashion because I am correct that you attempted to say this man is guilty of rape based on an accusation you read on the internet.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:03 amWhat the hell?
If someone loses job whatever because they say something they believe they have a free speech right to say, obviously the employer isn’t going to sue the employee using the constitution as its rationale. The only person who would have any reason to sue is the employee, i.e., the cheerleader in this case.
It would not any sense for the one doing the firing to sue the fired. So I have no idea what you’re talking about. And, in this one instance, I don’t think you do either.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:04 am^make
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:05 amIt wouldn’t have been a problem at Dictator Dave’s school, because my policy is that any children caught drinking or breaking any other laws are automatically banned from extra-curricular activities for life.
You’re a cheerleader and you go to a party and drink? Buh-bye. You’re off the team. You’re on the footba;ll team, go to a party and drink. Buh-bye. You’re off the team.
End of problem.
Dave Surls (81613b) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:13 amI agree with Aaron that H.S.’s legal claims are without merit. That said, her refusal to participate in the cheer for the player who assaulted and may have raped her was totally justified, and the actions of the other cheerleaders and the school were morally reprehensible. I’ve been a basketball player and fan my whole life, and I have never witnessed a cheer for a particular player. Cheers are always for the team as a whole. If a cheer was prepared for the benefit of a particular player, I can only conclude that the other cheerleaders were aware of the allegations against Bolton, and designed the cheer specifically to support him and to humiliate and put down H.S. For the school to punish H.S. for her rather mild “civil disobedience” was reprehensible.
Tim K (7e41e8) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:13 amLet’s look at this one a little more closely.
She made her claim, the police investigated, the prosecutor presented the case to the grand jury, and the grand jury returned a no-bill — meaning no indictment on any charge. The boy returns to school and his regular activities.
Now, comes the basketball game. Boy is playing, girl is cheering — until the cheer is specifically directed at him during a free-throw situation. This is where the problem arises.
The school had two choices.
1) Require the girl to cheer or leave the squad.
2) Allow the girl to remain silent, and thereby let an official representative of the school publicly level a rape allegation in the middle of the game by her silence.
The school chose #1 and folks are up in arms over not permitting #2. What would have happened if the school had allowed this girl to remain silent during those cheers? A lawsuit from the boy’s parents, over the school publicly stigmatizing their child as a criminal via the officially condoned actions of the cheerleader as a representative of the school/district. After all, this boy had legal rights, too, after having been cleared by the system — and part of that is the right to not be publicly stigmatized by the official speech/non-speech of the official representative of the district.
Now what complicates this case is that additional information later came to light which cause the investigation of the girls accusation to be reopened, an indictment to be returned, and a guilty plea to be made by the boy. But the school could not know the future, and had to make a decision based upon the facts at hand. In addition, there was a racial aspect to the case — white girl, black guy — that raised all sorts of community issues. Is the school really going to allow a white representative of the school to continue to level an accusation like that against a black student after the student had been (as of that time) cleared of wrongdoing?
Frankly, the school made a reasonable choice here — and certainly the best among those available.
Rhymes With Right (8d63ec) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:16 amAnother possible angle —
Did this girl know that by refusing to cheer for a man who assaulted her and may have raped her, she could be kicked off the squad? Did someone sit down with her at any point (before or after the incident) and say, “You either do all the cheers we do, or none of them, so do them next time or you’re off the squad?” Did that person know (or bother to find out) why she refused to cheer, and was there even an attempt at a reasonable accommodation for her situation? Because if the answer to one or more of the above is “no,” from an admittedly non-legal perspective, I think she absolutely had a case, though certainly not the one she tried to pursue.
In short, I don’t think this is a clear-cut situation. Sure, if a cheerleader refuses to participate in your standard “Go team go” or “We’re the best, we can’t be beat” or something like that, I think it’s pretty clear that she shouldn’t be on the squad. But there seems to be a major category difference between those types of cheers and this one. Frankly, this seems like a cheer that most people in her situation might have tried to “opt out” of, without believing that they were doing anything wrong. And if she didn’t know — or wasn’t warned — what would happen, and if the squad did not at least try to accommodate what seems like a very reasonable request (by someone who had already won a place on the squad) to NOT cheer for her assailant, then something seems very wrong with this outcome.
Demosthenes (ca616f) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:16 amOh, and about the cheers for the particular player — they took place when the players were at the foul line, and were a long tradition at the school.
Rhymes With Right (8d63ec) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:19 amAnd if the pharmacist’s employer fires her for not doing that part of the job, I’d support the employer.
You have the right to exercise your conscience and refuse to perform a task you find objectionable. Your employer then has the right to fire you if you refuse an order to do something that’s perfectly legal, even if you object to it.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:20 amDemosthenes, I agree with your thinking and you’re putting it mildly. I think Tim K makes the same point as you and puts it both harsher and more accurate terms.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:21 amRape my daughter and the jock want to be in jail. The first time you hit the street I’ll gut shoot you or lay your guts in your hands with a butcher knife and the hell with the law.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:23 amWe’ve all seen or played in sports games and observed cheerleaders.
How many times have we seem them cheer for a particular player?
I’ve never seen it.
They knew this girl had been assaulted. They knew this girl claimed this popular guy had raped her. And they made her pay by twisting an emotional knife in her guts with the power of peer group pressure behind it.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:25 amI think the Fifth Circuit was correct in dismissing the cheerleader’s lawsuit; I don’t think she should have been hit with “sanctions”. Making a losing argument isn’t the same as making a frivolous argument.
Also, I really cringed at the Fifth Circuit’s argument First Amendment argument. The court said that a student’s right to free speech ends when it “substantially interferes with the work of the school”. That’s true, but the the court’s finding that this cheerleader substantially interfered with the “work of the school” struck me as rather absurd. She sat out on a few cheers when her alleged sexual harasser was taking free throws — that’s all. Cheering basketball players isn’t the “work of the school” and even if it is, her refusal to cheer was not “substantial interference” at all.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:26 am“Frankly, the school made a reasonable choice here”
No, they didn’t. All those children should have been kicked off their teams when they got caught drinking and causing a disturbance at a party.
Dave Surls (81613b) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:28 amSeriously?
This is why people hate lawyers.
Did you even read the actual news article?
She was (wait: allegedly) gang raped by (at least) two assailants. She’s underage. The indictment against a co-defendant is still pending. And this chump pleaded guilty to Class A assault.
Is there a First Amendment violation? Not even close. Is the factual scenario anything like what is implied in your post? Not even close.
The only question is why the (alleged) rapist is still breathing. Strike that: the only legitimate question is why he’s still playing football.
Plead guilty to assault (specifically to avoid trial for more serious, sexually-based charges) and you get to stay on the football team
Decide not to cheer for that guy (oh: and you were the victim) and you’re kicked off the team.
Amazing. And you defend it.
Dude (f52e18) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:28 amThe federal legal claims she made are frivolous.
What I’d bet the commentators screaming about how awful the 5th Circuit is don’t understand is that the court expressly didn’t state she had no state law claims. The trial court there declined, since there were no valid federal claims, not to exercise jurisdiction over her state law claims (and she has a very appealing claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress). She, through her family, can now go and bring those claims in a state court.
I expect the district to pay more than enough in settling her state lawsuit to cover any sanctions assessed for this suit.
NickM (9d1bb3) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:29 amThat’s true.
And in what sense is it the work of the school to force its students to cheer individually and by name students who have assaulted them (just because maybe they’ve got the power to force this)?
Funny work, that. They should work on their priorities. If that’s what the “school” is about, they’ve got problems.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:32 am“2) Allow the girl to remain silent, and thereby let an official representative of the school publicly level a rape allegation in the middle of the game by her silence.”
Dear god you suck.
“That’s true, but the the court’s finding that this cheerleader substantially interfered with the “work of the school” struck me as rather absurd.”
This is kind of what makes it non-frivolous for me. Its not frivolous to say that this is not the “work of the school.”
imdw (0275b8) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:32 amSerious question: did you read the story?
I noticed you instantly commented that he was a rapist, and you seem to think they spontaneously started cheering for this guy for no apparent reason but to traumatize her.
You didn’t read the story, did you?
It’s normal to cheer for basketball player attempting this shot. You’re either lying or proud of your ignorance.
In other words, you have no idea what I said and your reply makes no sense because you are lazily trying to burn a straw man.
As I said, the school didn’t refer to the constitution… the girl did. You say ‘screw the constitution’ as though that isn’t abandoning the discussion Aaron is having to make the more obvious point everyone already agreed to… over and over and over again.
Try to read the articles on this topic. Instead of ignoring the facts and insisting this guy is guilty of rape (which you did do, and them pretended you did not do), and instead of insisting these girls were trying to humiliate the cheerleader (no evidence of that at all, and it’s unlikely given the reason they were cheering) maybe you should admit you came at this from a position of ignorance.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:33 amDude, who exactly defended it? Not Aaron.
He does the opposite of defending it by saying it was a stupid decision. He is making more specific claims. You even admit he’s right.
You’re right that this is why some people hate lawyers. They fall for Nancy Grace style accusations, with no evidence, and insist no one say a favorable word about the actual victim. In this case, the school was a victim of a frivolous and expensive lawsuit. Aaron blames the lawyer instead of the family of this girl, because he’s reasonable like that.
No one is saying rape victims should be humiliated. The only people insisting a rape surely occurred are nutcases.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:38 amBy the way — you folks might be interested in some more information on this case that may make it possible for you to see the timeline of the events.
http://www.silsbeebee.com/news.php?NewsSectionId=32
Rhymes With Right (8d63ec) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:38 amrhymes
thanks. its interesting stuff.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:53 amSo, Aaron. Let’s say you’re at a party and you run into this guy. He and seven of his friends grab you, pull you into a room, his seven friends pin you down, and the guy rapes you in the [deleted].
How would you feel about cheering for him at a football game?
[Edited for language. –Aaron]
mike (ae7db5) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:17 am#50…. the 5th Circuit relied heavily on its unsupported conclusion that her contract with the school district (the contract by which she is a cheerleader) required her to do these cheers, and this cheer in particular. I don’t see how it can determine that her First Amendment claim is frivolous without analyzing the specific terms of that contract. If she had a contract that said: “You are required to cheer for the team, but not for any individual members on the team” (for example), then the school district would be in breach of her contract and, in doing so, would be punishing her for the exercise of her First Amendment rights.
Dustin, I’m not saying necessarily that she should prevail, but that those of you supporting the 5th Circuit’s legal conclusion should think a little more closely about it and the implications of it. Again, I ask, what, if anything, are the Constitutional limitations on how the school can condition benefits (such as participation in extra-curricular activities) on a student’s exercise of speech? One could take the position that a student who wishes to speak through a “mouthpiece” for the school, by being on the school newspaper, has forfeited the right to say what they want in that paper; but the Court has ruled that student journalists, in student-run papers, have some basic first amendment rights, though the schools may impose “reasonable” restrictions on student speech in school newspapers, based on “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier).
Are the restrictions on the speech of student cheerleaders subject to less scrutiny than the restrictions on the speech of student journalists? Why did the court not require the school to make some sort of basic showing of reasonableness for their requirement that cheerleaders cheer for individual team members?
Whether he raped her or not is not the crucial legal issue regarding her being forced to either speak the school’s message in favor of that student or leave the squad. He has, however, been proven (as a fact, as Aaron properly notes) to have assaulted her.
What was the exact content of the cheer? Was it something like “Bolton, Bolton, he’s our man! If he can’t do it, no one can!”? “Bolton’s the Best!”
What if it was an objectively false statement (“We love Bolton, yes we do! We love Bolton, so can you!”)? Can the school constitutionally deprive her of the ability to be on the cheer squad for refusing to state a false fact (because it is not true that “we,” all of the cheerleaders, love Bolton)?
These are details the court deemed irrelevant, apparently, because it did not examine them. But legally, if the content of the cheers is utterly irrelevant, than that means that the school could condition her participation on the cheer squad on her being willing to say literally anything the school directs her to say.
PatHMV (f7ac31) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:24 amThis is as clear a case of adding insult to injury as I can recall.
I am not going to be drawn into any debates on this but, if the law cannot deal with this any better, then the law is wrong.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:28 amThat’s an interesting question.
We have a foul shot from a basketball player, and in this case, the common sense solution is to cheer generally instead of specifically for the guy making the shot.
The courts are saying the school can condition membership as a cheerleader on willingness to support that specific player, despite the situation they are in. That’s like saying you can get kicked off the basketball team if you refuse to play when another player is on the team.
I’m comfortable with that, since the court is only saying the federal law doesn’t control this issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:39 amThe Huff post was all over the “conservative judges in the 5th circuit from Texas” who ruled against the rape victim – obviously to stir up left wing anger to show why conservative judges are bad.
What was not mentioned in several articles was that the first grand jury did not indict because of the two defendants were black an some of the black grand jury members would not indict another black for a crime against a white victim.
Most likely the failure to indict was a major factor in allowing the “star” player to continue to play. The school while on solid legal grounds made a very poor ethical and moral decision again to remain politically correct. ie the star athlete.
Joe (6120a4) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:41 amHe pleads guilty to an assault charge and states he has no hard feelings toward her (presumably for alleging sexual assault).
Apparently (looking at AW’s embedded link) this guilty plea to the assault happened only recently, long after the girl was kicked off the cheerleading squad. Can we assume, lawyer friends, that he would not have pleaded guilty
if there was nothing to plead guilty to?
So, at the time of the cheerleader thing the guy was accused but innocent until proven guilty. The school apparently didn’t want to be seen as saying the fellow was guilty by allowing the cheerleader to make a public display of her contempt for the fellow.
And in the background of it all is the no-win race card.
Well, colleges suspend or kick players off the team all of the time for “alleged” crimes that have not come to trial yet (assuming there is some degree of evidence that wrongdoing happened), and they know there will be hell to pay if they don’t. Not sure how high school should be any different. Had the girl simply not participated in the cheer, I think the school should have ignored it. If she was making a public statement trying to push the school into doing something about the guy, then they were probably right in dismissing her from the team. As often the case, inadequate information, little evidence of rational thought, and overdependence on lawyers and courts to hold people to account for their actions.
New T-shirt, “If I don’t do any time, it wasn’t a crime!”
Off topic- Anybody see the missile launched about 35 miles off the coast near LA last night? Word is it wasn’t one of ours.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:44 amIf that young boy’s name was Polanski or if he was dark-skinned, you guys would call for his emasculation. How pathetic you are.
Oplontis (0692b1) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:45 amPatHMV,
To answer you directly, the school has a lot of power to restrict speech. But it’s not unlimited
West Virginia v Barnette takes a similar tack as PatHMV, in my opinion.
Other cases that might interest you are:
Tinker v. Des Moines
Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Morse v Frederick
One issue is that this was disruptive to some extent. I also think it’s important that the school not defame someone. I’m not saying the school is defaming the accused if it permits this protest sit-down… but it’s one of those issues that seems to be where interests have collided.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to just excuse participation from events where she would have to cheer him. But should federal law force the school to do that?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:50 amOplontis, his skin is very dark. Not sure what you are trying to say.
It sounds as if the school had the choice of dismissing the cheerleader, thereby suggesting they didn’t believe her story and she was making false allegations, or letting her make a public display, thereby suggesting they supported her charge that he committed sexual assault (even though he was still playing).
How about this- player kicked off football and basketball team for underage drinking, cheerleader canned for underaged drinking. Moral of story, underage drinking in a big house of girls and boys often leads to regretable behavior, so don’t do it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:53 amWe must respect the rights of the accused… except when his name is Roman Polanski or Bill Clinton.
Conservative thought (?) in all its splendor.
Oplontis (0692b1) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:53 am“the 5th Circuit relied heavily on its unsupported conclusion that her contract with the school district”
Since when can minors enter into contracts?
Since when is the relationship between a school and a student a contractual one? The relationship is an in loco parentis relationship.
I haven’t thought about it a whole lot, but I don’t quite get the reasoning of the court on that one, at least on first examination.
Dave Surls (81613b) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:54 amDustin, ever read the book Friday Night Lights, about Texas football in one particular small town? It’s apparently a significant tradition in many Texas schools that each cheerleader “adopts” one or more team members, and is responsible for putting signs in his yard, arranging birthday surprises for him, etc.
On the one hand, I generally prefer that the federal courts not turn all of life, especially school life, into one big First Amendment question. On the other hand, however, the Court has very often not ruled in that direction, so the law currently is that schools ARE significantly regulated by the First Amendment, and as a result face significant limitations in terms of what speech it can require students to make (or condition benefits upon them making). Under existing precedents (as opposed to how I might like the law to be), I think this is a much closer question than the 5th Circuit acknowledges.
PatHMV (f7ac31) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:54 am“… I don’t quite get the reasoning …”
How surprising!
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:55 amSounds like a good ol’ boy job to me. Who’s son is this kid? How much money/local influence does the guy have? Why does the ball player get to commit assault and still play ball? Is it coz the girl had no case, or needed better lawyers? or is it coz some people think that good players are hard to find but you can always train another pretty face to shout slogans at them?
I’ve hear this one before. A local popular jock with some talent assaulted (allegedly raped)a girl on the campus where I went to school… and the pressure was on her not to “ruin his chances” because of a “stupid youthful mistake”. She didn’t charge him and other local jocks started showing up on campus at odd hours until some guys from the fraternities showed a couple of them a pretty bad time… you know boys being boys and all…..
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:59 amIf the girl and family felt she was being humiliated as a “false accuser” I can understand their desire to go to great length to clear her name- that was probably the issue more than whether or not she was a cheerleader.
Sounds like no winners, unless the guy goes on to get a scholarship to play football and laughs with his buddies about what he got away with.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:59 amI hate to quote Christoph yet again, but can he explain how he knows they knew the girl had been assaulted at the time of this cheer protest?
He seems to know things that aren’t true.
Imagine you didn’t know anything more than he said and she said. No confessions or convictions occurred yet and you are not clairvoyant. One athlete refuses to participate in the event, in the middle of the event, because they have a huge problem with another athlete.
Still seems like overkill to kick them off entirely, but it’s a much different picture than humiliating someone you know for sure was assaulted.
All I’m saying is that Federal Law should leave this alone.
Now wait… Oplontis, you defended an author of Jim Crow laws with a few hundred words of wikipedia copypasta, simply because that guy was a democrat. You attacked West in a way you wouldn’t but for his race… saying he owed Pelosi for risking her life.
And yet you’re saying WE are racist against Polanksi? Based on what? There’s much more evidence Polanksi is guilty and has escaped justice than there is against this basketball player, and everyone here seems to think both should have their day in court.
You can’t escape your record of bigotry via projection.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:59 amAppeal.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:59 amDustin, FYI, I wrote my #66 before seeing your #62. I cited Hazelwood in an earlier comment. Thanks for the reference to W. Va. v. Barnette, I’ll take a look.
All I’m saying is that based on that mixed bag of precedents, the court was wrong to dismiss this on a 12(b)(6) motion.
PatHMV (f7ac31) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:59 amI can’t possibly see how her silent sit-down-on-the-sidelines-while-others-cheer could be deemed “disruptive”.
But in any event, if the Fifth Circuit assumed her behavior was “disruptive”, it was making a decision on facts not in evidence. Unless I’m mistaken, this was a motion to dismiss, which means all the facts are ASSUMED to be favorable to plaintiff (the cheerleader).
The United States Constitution is federal law and protects individuals (in this case, the cheerleader) from government (in this case, the public school).
Well, in theory.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:02 pmThat’s pretty lame.
PatHMV, I can’t argue with your point that the federal system does involve itself in this kind of matter sometimes.
I made a mistake conflating your point that this is an arguable case with what I want the law to be and what you want the law to be.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:02 pmAnd even if you disagree about that, it certainly wasn’t a lawsuit so frivolous such that she should pay the school district’s lawyer’s fees.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:04 pmSanctions are starting to seem unjustified at this point. I think you’ve got a good argument. I still think the court should have dismissed. We’re not just talking about speech, but a refusal to complete an activity implicit in the team. I don’t see how they could have won on most of their claims.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:05 pmDustin, agreed it’s pretty lame (but I feel that way about many Texas cultural practices about high school football).
I also agree that her state law claims should be much stronger than the arguable federal claims. As I noted, the 5th Circuit relied heavily on statements to the effect that “her cheerleading contract required her to do X,” without providing any support for that conclusion, no quotes from the “contract” or school policies or anything. While contract breaches CAN (with some regularity) provide the basis for federal claims, questions regarding the actual meaning of the contract are generally state-law problems and better handled in state court.
PatHMV (f7ac31) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:06 pmYou don’t even think it’s possible for a member of a choreographed group to disrupt the group by stopping?
You’re editorializing like Cristoph did (albeit to a much less absurd degree).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:08 pm#67
Not surprising at all. I don’t know everything.
Perhaps you can answer my questions?
Dave Surls (81613b) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:08 pmNothing I’ve read — and certainly not in the court opinion — said the routines were choreographed.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:24 pmStop right there. YOU made the claim it isn’t possible this was disruptive. YOU have the burden to show it wasn’t choreographed. I’ve never seen a cheer routine that wasn’t, but I don’t really know anything about this subject.
Also, when you’re told to do something in public school, and you say “no”, that disrupts the process of finishing your assignments and activities.
You’ve set this up in a way where you’ve got a lot of proving to do.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:26 pmShe doesn’t have the right to well being? She must relive the assault by not only cheering for the guy, but committing an act that could put her claims against her legally (“Well my dear why cheer for a guy who attacked you”). Do the cheerleaders sign contract with the school? Does being valedictorian mean you must say exactly what the school wants you to say?
Zaggs (db8581) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:32 pmKman, that’s from the court opinion.
Sounds like someone was leading the movements and cheers of a group. That’s an example of choreography.
The accusations from the girl are horrifying. After this cheer incident, she was vindicated to the extent that he pled to assault and even said he didn’t have hard feelings for these horrifying accusations.
But the way thinkprogress and friends want to use this as some kind of proof that conservative judges ignore rape victims is unfair, to say they least.
Kicking her off was overkill, and the parents should have appealed to the school board instead of the US Constitution. Even if the school refuses to reinstate her or pay the family hundreds of thousands of dollars, they shouldn’t have taken this to Federal Court.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:33 pmWell, obviously, not having videotaped the basketball games, I can only go so far in “showing” something.
But I’m using common sense. The court never mentioned choreography; in fact, it never even mentioned that the girls did a “routine”. It’s just that she was expected to cheer for the alleged sexual assaulter (which could mean simply shouting, “Go, go, go!”) when he was making free throws, and she didn’t. The other girls, however, did.
Put another way, if her refusal was a disruption, shouldn’t the court have explained how?
Well, that depends on what is being asked, doesn’t it? You can’t be asked to do something which contravenes the law or your rights. That’s what this case is about.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:34 pmI don’t think we know how “disruptive” the non-cheering was. If it was a one time “looking preoccupied” it’s one thing. If she made it look obvious she was “boycotting the cheer” in protest, that’s another.
It looks like the school was at risk of either treating the accused as guilty pending legal action, or treating the accuser as a liar by ignoring her serious charges. It seemed they needed to do what they could to affirm the rights and dignity of each without taking sides. It doesn’t seem they did that, unless the girl had made an obvious display, which doe not sound like it.
So, the school treats your daughter in such a way as to ruin her reputation and social life, saying she has made up false charges against a popular athlete. I don’t know how the law is to remedy that, but it was wrong.
Like I said before, colleges and pro teams discipline players before an innocent or guilty verdict is made. Can’t they do it in high school, too? Or is high school more of a guaranteed right than college or pro, which can be seen as more of a priviledge to participate? Does it come down to the subjective judgement by the school as to “how bad it looks”?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:34 pmAgain, no one is forcing her to cheer for this guy. Nor did the school know the guy would admit to an assault later, so no one meant for her to ‘relive the ordeal’.
There’s two sides to this. The school having a policy against foul line cheers for the accused rapist, but allowing cheers for all other foul line shooters, seems to be taking sides.
Your argument that he would have been acquitted of rape because she cheered him seems weak. And there will be no acquittal, since there wasn’t enough evidence for a prosecution.
We’re talking about an imperfect situation with an overkill reaction to kick her off.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:39 pmExactly. It’s silly to say it was disruptive, or that it couldn’t possible be disruptive.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:40 pmI totally don’t get the contract thing.
How can a 16 year old girl enter into a contract?
What are the terms of this contract?
How can a minor enter into a contract with someone who stands in loco parentis to the minor?
What benefit does the cheerleader recieve from this particular contract? What renumeration is she recieving for providing her cheerleading services?
Anybody?
Dave Surls (81613b) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:42 pmWell, consider the locale. A high school gym during a high school basketball game. A silent protest off in the corner by one cheerleader doesn’t strike me as the kind of thing to really grab a lot of attention, much less rise to the level of a “disruption”.
But okay. I suppose reasonable minds can differ.
I suppose.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:45 pmGuilty of assault? No extracurricular activities for criminals.
Problem solved.
Even if he is a star.
Jack Wagon (36f8b0) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:45 pmEven if it empties the basketball team of players.
As several others have asked, why is he allowed to play? The plea would have been gone for a year, at least, when I played. Lesser things were gone for a year.
I was cheered when taking free-throw shots. I never paid much attention to which of the cheerleaders was there or not, or cheering or not. They were not all there all of the time doing every cheer. At the start and quarter and half breaks, yes. Most of the rest of the time there were usually more than half, but not always. She could have absented herself from those particular cheers with no one not on the squad noticing, I suspect, and think there is more going on than is said.
htom (412a17) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:45 pmoplontis
um, polanski wasn’t just accused. he was guilty. he pled guilty. And i treat those who plead guilty as guilty. indeed, i did so in this case, too.
And billy bob clinton? we know the underlying facts, or at least enough of them to draw a conclusion. I’ll leave out the gory details, but here’s the definition of sexual relations:
So without getting too gross, let me note that “any person” could be either bill or monica. So when she was giving him, ahem, a Lewinsky, you could say that Bill Clinton “knowingly engaged in… contact with the genitalia … of [bill clinton] with an intent to… gratify the sexual desire of [Bill Clinton].” So clinton technically lied when he said he did not engage in sexual relations with monica.
And that is assuming that clinton is such a monumentally selfish lover that he never touched her breasts, or butt, that he literally treated her like a receptacle and nothing else. Does anyone find that assertion plausible?
Now ken Starr did blow it by writing a romance novel rather than simple report. To be blunt, i would have reduced the whole discussion of their relationship to one, maybe two paragraphs at the most giving the reader some sense of all the different ways clinton did in fact touch her naughty bits.
Now you might say, “ah, but don’t be so technical.” Well, first his defense is technical so he should live and die by that sword. second, if you want to get substantive, rather than technical, this question was about trying to determine if clinton had any kind of relationship with Monica that would implicate a claim of sexual harassment. so substantively did he think what Monica did for him was irrelevant to the claim? Indeed, what monica did for him is precisely what Jones alleged that he asked her to do. But according to his definition if she had acquiesced THAT wouldn’t have been sexual relations, either.
So with clinton the facts are known. the question is the interpretation of the law. As i have shown, clinton is lucky he wasn’t charged with perjury. and if i was a prosecutor with jurisdiction, i would have charged him with it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:45 pmI’m baffled why this kind of crap is being litigated at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:46 pmDave
what does she get from entering into a cheerleading contract?
The right to call herself a cheerleader. and we all know that is a huge deal.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:47 pmDustin
i do think that if she did cheer for him, that in any suit after that they would have used that against her. how effective it would have been would be another matter.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:49 pmUh huh.
Let’s just say it’s not quite so cut and dried as, “And i treat those who plead guilty as guilty. indeed, i did so in this case, too.”
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:51 pmSomebody correct me if I’m wrong, but when she (well, her parents) filed the lawsuit against the school, the GJ had refused to indict the boys, and her first civil lawsuit against the boys was also dismissed.
So I’m guessing they wanted just a little justice…. somewhere.
Kman (d25c82) — 11/9/2010 @ 12:52 pmI don’t think whether or not a girl is on the cheerleading squad should be a subject of litigation.
It ridiculous.
Part of why our education system does such a crappy job of educating our children these days is because our society tolerates parents who think they should litigate every time a school acts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:05 pmWhat if they plead guilty in the future, but you don’t know it today? Even less cut and dried. That was the situation in this case.
Of course, you’re the one whose first comment insisted guilt for rape with nothing to explain your certainty. Helps to read instead of rushing to comment something inflammatory (unless you were trying to be inflammatory).
I think Kman’s right. They want justice and are just reaching out no matter how fair or not according to whomever’s legal views. And it’s understandable. That’s why Aaron identifies the lawyer as the problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:06 pmThat’s just stomach turning. I would hope it is a counterproductive argument.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:08 pmA person is innocent until proven guilty. And the cheerleaders were entitled to their own opinion, however swayed by the popularity of the star player and their desire to go with the group and be popular, about whether the other cheerleader was telling the truth or not.
They knew she claimed to have been raped and assaulted, the latter of which was eventually proven. It is simple decency not to force this girl to cheer the specific man who she said raped her. They treated her inhumanely. Their actions were reprehensible and their coach should be fired for it.
If anyone deserved suspension, it was the other cheerleaders, not this one. But you can’t suspend a majority, can you, no matter how malicious.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:13 pmYeah, except Polanski is more than merely accused. He pled guilty.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:38 pm“Still seems like overkill to kick them off entirely, but it’s a much different picture than humiliating someone you know for sure was assaulted.”
Better off to just humiliate someone who you just suspect might have been assaulted!
imdw (6b1014) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:38 pmwhen you rape and/or otherwise assault the cheerleaders you shouldn’t be allowed to play the sports no more
simple as that…
plus also the other cheerleaders are rapist-cheering skanks and this should go down on their permanent record I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:54 pmDustin
> I think Kman’s right.
Its a weird sensation writing that, isn’t it?
> They want justice and are just reaching out no matter how fair or not according to whomever’s legal views. And it’s understandable. That’s why Aaron identifies the lawyer as the problem.
I can tell you many times in medical malpractice that we have had claims that were absolutely delusional. like as in theories of liability where a patient refused our care and hurt himself as a result–as though we are required to commit a battery on him in order to avoid liability. or there are the cases where the theory of liability is physically impossible. but these are people who have suffered or maybe lost a family member and you can completely understand the desire to lash out and blame someone, anyone. That’s what i figure is going on with this girl and her family.
Or she had willing sex and didn’t want to admit that to daddy. that does happen, which is horrible because it results in unjust accusation and it makes it harder to recognize the real thing.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:58 pmI was not very nice to the cheerleaders at my football and basketball games. Now that my daughter loves cheerleading, I want to feel bad.
JD (306f5d) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:59 pmhappyfeet, before we put it on their records, we should make sure the guy is a rapist.
He wasn’t even a convicted assaulter at the time of this cheering.
imdw, that’s typical of you. You think this is funny… probably would think it’s funnier if the girl was a lot younger given your commenting history on children and rape.
I don’t think your summary is fair. I don’t think anyone was trying to humiliate a girl or suspected she was a rape or assault victim. They cheered for a foul line shooter, and she refused. If you have some evidence they were being thoughtful of humiliating her, let’s see it.
Well, I am pleased you have moved so far from your initial claims to this point, but I don’t get where you’re so certain they meant to hurt anyone, rather than simply treat all the foul lin shooters the same.
The burden of proof is on you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:03 pmWhich is possible, but it’s making it really hard to give your:
… any credibility whatever.
Unless you think he assaulted her and had way-cool consenting sex that-daddy-wouldn’t-approve-of with her.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:07 pmMe, rather than worry about who to suspend, I would have ignored the issue entirely.
She wants to refuse to cheer… cool. Refuse. If that screws up the cheer I honestly don’t see why that matters. It’s disruptive in the way a kid refusing to pledge allegiance is… not serious to me.
I don’t want to locate the horrible monsters and persecute them with suspensions off the cheer squad like Christoph does, based on very little information, in order to roost on the moral high ground I just invented.
But someone didn’t behave the way I’d like, and kicked a girl off the squad for refusing to cheer. My reaction is still not to do much. I’ve changed my mind a bit in that I don’t even think firing the coach makes sense. I don’t think damages are warranted either. It would be nice if they let her back on the squad, since her refusal was reasonable, but the person who deserves punishment for the actual horror here would be the rapist(s), and the proof needs to be shown first.
Suing the school over this is a hunt for deep pockets.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:09 pmYou’re just paying sophist by pretending there’s equivalence.
Aaron’s referring to a point in time before the guilty plea and a plea to a crime other than rape.
Why would anyone want you to bestow credibility on them, anyway? All you ever do is pretend people said things they didn’t and announce your superiority.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:11 pm“imdw, that’s typical of you. You think this is funny… probably would think it’s funnier if the girl was a lot younger given your commenting history on children and rape.”
I think AW’s consistent downplaying of the rape here — including leaving it off his deadline( “refusing to cheer” … for her rapist) — is kind of amusing. In that ‘I’m shocked to see this going on here’ kind of way.
imdw (b1b3a6) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:17 pmDustin – please tell me dimwit’s asshattery did not surprise you.
JD (b98cae) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:22 pmchristoph
Jeez, louise, let me explain to you something.
My comment above was exceedingly clear in saying that he can be treated as guilty of assault. I just refused to treat him as guilty of more. But my attitude was even if he pled guilty due to inordinate fear of the greater charge, i will still treat him as guilty of what he did plead to. So what you did was take me out of context and claim suggest I said the opposite of what I did say.
And, by the way, it is wholly possible to be guilty of an assault on a woman accusing you of rape without actually raping her. for instance, if they had consensual sex, and then after she told him she was going to accuse him of rape, then he might have gotten angry and used his hands on her. Which is wrong, but very different from rape.
The fact is we don’t know what went on there. we can say he committed assault on her because he pled to that. but he didn’t plead to more, and i am not going to assume based on partial evidence at best that he is guilty of more.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:30 pmRight.
Why would a girl just pretend a regretted one-nighter never happened and not speak of it when she can submit to a rape kit, file a police report, and drag herself through a lengthy and humiliating court case?
That makes all kinds of sense, genius.
mike (ae7db5) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:50 pmNot at all!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:51 pmFair enough, Aaron. Thanks for commenting. That makes sense. I didn’t understand that you were saying we can, in fact, consider him guilty of assault, period, as things stand now.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:54 pmIt’s as though you’re just being constituent to accepting as truth what’s proven, and not pretending you know more.
What’s funny is people refusing to do that upset that you’ve constructed a reasonable way to talk about facts and are sticking to it in two controversial situations.
I think the moaning from the guy who jumped into the thread 3 minutes after you posted it to declare the assailant a certain rapist, obviously without reading your post or your links or considering the issue, is just being a blowhard jerk who has no right to lecture anybody about their credibility with handling guilty pleas.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:55 pmconstituent was a typo of consistent!
dammit
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 2:56 pmA few comments:
1. Being a cheerleader is not a right, it’s a privilege bestowed by the school. Therefore removing the girl from the squad is not a punishment, and I can’t conceive of any circumstance under which she could ever have a case for suing to be restored.
2. Hazelton says that that particular school newspaper was not a public forum; other circumstances in other schools might mean that their papers are public forums. But one thing is certain: a cheerleading squad is never a forum of any kind, and students have no first amendment rights while serving on one. They’re speaking for the school, not for themselves. If they don’t like the message the school is asking them to express, they have the option of refusing, and assuming the risk that the school will decide to dispense with their services.
3. A cheerleader has an implied contract with the school, that she will say whatever she is told to say, just as a footballer’s implied contract is that he will play as the coach and captain instruct him. If he is instructed to play in a particular position and he decides he’d rather not, he shouldn’t be surprised to find himself off the team, and if he sues the school he bloody well deserves sanctions.
4. The suggestion that had the school allowed her to sit out that cheer it would have effectively been endorsing her claims against him is ridiculous. Silence is silence; all the school would have been saying is “she doesn’t want to do this cheer, so we’re letting her not do it”.
5. At the time of the game, the school had no more reason to believe one of them than the other. It could have suspended him from playing, for being accused of rape, or it could have suspended her for being suspected of making false accusations, or it could have done both; it chose to do neither, which is just as legitimate as any other choice.
6. If the school had asked the cheerleaders to cheer Allah, someone would have gone straight to court for school-sponsored prayer. But if we lived in a world where the courts didn’t pretend that such a cheer was constructively the same as establishing Islam as the state church, and the school ordered such a cheer, and some cheerleaders said it was against their conscience to chant it, then I think the school ought to have excused them, but it would have the right not to, and to kick them off the squad if they persisted in their refusal. Ditto if the Jewish kid in the choir refuses to sing Xmas songs; he ought to be accommodated, but if he isn’t he doesn’t have a federal case against the school.b
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/9/2010 @ 3:53 pmA.W. – People here still seem unnecessarily confused. Tom Maguire over at Just One Minute has a pretty good summary of the time line and some links you do not:
“The Chronicle alludes to the correct timeline – there was an incident at a party in October 2008. Alcohol was involved, so witness credibility and meaningful consent seem to have been at issue, but in any case, Rountree and Bolton were promptly arrested and suspended from the football team.
In January 2009 the grand jury declined to indict, so “innocent until proven guilty” became a factor and Bolton was allowed to play with the basketball team. During this period of legal limbo the victim refused to cheer for Bolton specifically while he shot free throws. I can only guess that school administrators and their legal advisors felt that the cheerleader could not be seen as promoting the notion that Bolton was a rapist while functioning as a representative of the school after a grand jury had declined to indict.
In November 2009 another grand jury finally indicted Bolton, at which point he was kicked off the football team and out of school.”
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:31 pmTrue, true.
However, if the cheerleaders cheer each foul penalty shot, except for this one player (which is apparently what some want, since this cheer is being characterized as a deliberate attempt to humiliate the girl) then it could be interpreted as more than just letting the girl sit out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:32 pmMilhouse:
The privilege/right issue you raise in (1) is hardly dispositive. The school could not, for example, condition her participation on the cheer squad on her agreeing to chant in the street “George Bush sucks!” There would be no reasonable pedagogical purpose served by such a regulation, and thus under Hazleton, it would be an unconstitutional restriction on her freedom to speak (and not to speak).
As to your (3), the court said there was an actual contract with the cheerleader. Now, maybe they meant an implied one, or one formed by their various policies. But we have no idea what it actually says, and the court didn’t take evidence as to what the actual content of the contract (implied or express) was.
By your (6), you seem to be saying that you agree that, for example, a school can condition participating in any extracurricular activity on the student agreeing to voice support for any policy, religion, or other statement that the school officials decide the students should express support for. If you want to be a member of the football team, you must swear an oath to support Barack Obama as the President, for example. Is that what you’re saying? If so, to be very blunt, you don’t seem to have a very firm grasp on the ACTUAL state of First Amendment law in this country.
PatHMV (c34b06) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:32 pmDustin, under the analysis that letting the girl sit out is somehow endorsing her allegation of rape, why wouldn’t the same logic mean that allowing him to play is endorsing his claim that she was lying?
PatHMV (c34b06) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:35 pmI don’t think it is an endorsement of the allegation to let her sit out.
I think it could be construed as an endorsement of the allegation if they only issued cheers specifically for foul penalty shooters other than cheers for this guy.
Some have suggested that the entire point of this cheer was to humiliate this poor girl and her horrific rape experience, but I think it was actually just how they react to foul line shots.
I do not see why anyone should really care that she wanted to sit out. I think it’s a disruption disobedient and a good opportunity for a coach to use some discretion and ignore it. It was overkill to kick her off the team over it, but I think it’s a response directly related to her refusal to comply with instructions rather than a response based on a message she wanted to send.
I think there is an implied agreement for athletes to follow coach’s instructions. There’s an implied agreement for band members to play the songs they are directed to.
You ask about how allowing him to play, when he has done nothing contrary to what a basketball player should do, is different from a cheerleader refusing to participate in a cheer. I think you should compare apples to apples.
If he refused to throw his free throw shot because of this mess (be it the cheer snub or playing for the same team as the girl represents or whatever)….
eh, that’s actually worse than what the lady did. But I don’t think people have any right to ‘benefits’ like cheerleading. People are kept off teams like this for all sorts of reasons less relevant than refusing to cheer. Their overkill reaction sucks and they should reverse it… and that’s all they should do.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:48 pmPat, sorry for rambling. Anyhow, we’re talking about two different things.
1) letting her sit out without punishment (my recommendation)
2) instructing the team to not cheer this specific player (I also like this idea).
#2 seems like an endorsement of her accusations, to me, and in today’s world is probably not the best solution. And yet it’s a good common sense resolution.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:58 pmPatHMV,
I believe that is exactly the point and why the girl’s family has pursued it so. I can only assume that the school felt the need to treat the athlete as “innocent until proven guilty”, and that to allow a public display by the cheerleader was something they did not want. However, by being so heavy handed against the cheerleader it certainly looks like the school is taking “his side” and suggesting that she lied about the incident.
This would explain why the family was so insistent. It wasn’t just about being a cheerleader, it was about whose reputation was going to get dragged through the mud. Now, was there a lawyer for the school telling them who to fear a lawsuit from the most; the group coming with Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or the local attorney hired by the dad?
As a non-lawyer, I’m thinking her family and lawyer wanted to clear her name, and the actual claim was based on tactical considerations on what they had the best chance of winning on, since there is no clear (legal) precedent for accusing someone of being spineless and unfair.
What is the chance, do you think, that he pleaded guilty to something he didn’t do just to get it behind him? Was he afraid of another try for an indictment on a sexual assault, or did the prosecutor have a good assault case?
Daley- thanks for the tremendous clarification.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:08 pmI think depending on how hypersensitive people are, anything could be seen as endorsing anything. Of course let me clearly delineate between two different definitions of “sensitive.” there is yourself being easily offended, and there is being courteous toward others. and i mean hypersensitive in the first sense, here. if you are bound and determined to be offended, you will be.
I think the coach of the cheerleading squad should have considered somehow avoiding cheering him by name, either by avoiding that kind of cheer completely or just avoiding that kind of cheer for that one guy. They were her teammates and they should have had her back. and if they didn’t spontaneously have her back on this, then this would have been one of those moments when this extra-curricular activity would have taught them life lessons and character, by forcing them to at least fake it.
And if he got annoyed the cheer coach, or whatever you call it, can explain that they are staying the hell out of it.
Well, that’s how i feel about it, anyway.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:12 pm“If he refused to throw his free throw shot because of this mess (be it the cheer snub or playing for the same team as the girl represents or whatever)….
eh, that’s actually worse than what the lady did.”
What?
imdw (a544ba) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:13 pmDustin,
I think once the school decided to let him play because no indictment was made, that the school body as a whole, including the cheerleaders, needed to treat him like any other athlete. But to strong arm the girl the way they did I think does send the message that they were supporting the athlete over the cheerleader, which again is what I think this is all about. It’s not that she couldn’e be a cheerleader as much as it was suggested she was a liar making false allegations. IMO.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:15 pmIMDW, it was attempt to explore her behavior in a different context (a basketball player trying to avoid making an implied statement by refusing to play). I think that’s worse than just sitting out from cheering, partly because the game is a competition.
It’s similar in some ways, but just not the same degree of disruption.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:19 pmAaron, I wouldn’t expect the cheerleading coach to treat the guy different than anybody else- unless things have changed since the last century, the “Joe, Joe, he’s our man, if he can’t make it nobody can” stuff is pretty common. I think the school should have treated it as a difficult situation between two individual students at that point and have showed a little common consideration and let the cheerleader cope in relative privacy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:21 pmI am not sure, but this is a realistic guess.
they really should have let her sit out without punishment, but this kind of unfairness shouldn’t involve the federal government.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:21 pmDustin
There is never any impled agreements to cheer for someone that assaulted you – we are talking – first and foremost about a victim and second about a possible felon. I also disagree that this is an unusual case – in fact its quite common and there is a process – confidential – that is followed. School Board Associations such as TASB have guidelines and training for this so for the school to have handled it in this situation means someone didnt follow the rules and the fact its gone to court – is a strong sign that wrong doing by the board is so agregious that the only way to stave off a huge lawsuit is to roll the jury dice
Rarely have I seen someone with either pending charges or allegations of assault being allowed to play – indeed most student handbooks of conduct specifically state that – EVEN FOR SPEEDING tickets a student will be suspended from extra curricular activities from chess club to orchestra to track.
I at this point feel that the process was not followed and anyone even remotely associated with the decision to put that player on the court should be fired at the least with loss of pensions
This will be appealed and an easy victory will ensue.
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:22 pmAlso an arrest, even if exonerated, is grounds for expulsion immediately from the public schools
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:23 pmI think if you look at the cheerleaders on the sideline of any game, unless there is a particular gymnastics-type stunt, most of them are looking in different disrections, some cheering and some doing nothing at any given moment. So, I guess as we said already up around #90, it is conceivable she could have done something to try to make a big scene, or she could have been sitting down for a moment for whatever reason.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:27 pmI bet you it won’t be reversed.
What stakes do you like?
Wow, you’re a lot harsher than the people who kicked the girl off a piddly cheerleader team. You’d take livelihood away for forcing someone to cheer someone they learned was an assaulted… in the future.
You’re claiming you know they broke school board rules. Show me you didn’t make that up with a hyperlink. I bet if you refuse to play a song for band, you can be kicked out. If you refuse to throw the ball for your team, you can get kicked off the team.
I wouldn’t respond that way… it’s overkill even without her explanation.
Insane.
As I said, common sense could have handled this better, and the hysterical kooks screaming for federal justice are even crazier than the idiot who kicked the girl off the team.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:31 pmInsane.
Convict people before they are convicted?
You’re on both sides here, saying it was wrong to kick someone off the team, while arguing for a much harsher penalty (including kicking off a team) for NOTHING.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:32 pmDustin, I agree in one way that it shouldn’t have gone to the federal government, and that is why I don’t think the issue is simply being disappointed at being kicked off the cheerleading team. It is about her reputation put into disrepute by the schools actions.
What’s the big deal if a cheerleader, for whatever reason, did not go along with one cheer during a game? Is that a reason for kicking someone off of the team? I don’t think so, unless the cheerleading coach was making an issue of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:33 pm@124 The school could not, for example, condition her participation on the cheer squad on her agreeing to chant in the street “George Bush sucks!”
Unless, of course, they were at a pep rally or other event in preparation for a game against George Bush High School and cheers of “(opposing school) sucks!’ was the norm.
I’m just a layman, but my impression of Milhouse’s #6 is that he not suggesting that the school can require ANY speech, but that it can require speech consistent with the activity.
malclave (1db6c5) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:33 pm135 and 136 from the babbling bozo epwj are remarkable in the sheer volume of ass pulls, and just made up stuff. Good Allah. Delusional, often?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:39 pmRe #139- College players at times get disciplined for being involved in “incidents” even when there are no charges filed. Standard for declaring guilty is different in a court of law and a school administration.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:44 pmAgain a reasonable guess. While I have no idea if you’re right, that would explain a lot of this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:44 pmDustin
As my kids to this day participate in extra curricular sports both here and the states its drummed into their heads – first the police dont just arrest people mostly without cause, secound extra curricular sports and activities are not a right they are a priviledge
JD
As now that you are a documented total liar – why shouldnt anyone remotely believe what you say
Have you gone to the FBI yet with your evidence of the “corrupt establishment” that you uncovered?
They are waiting BTW
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:45 pmJD
Have you gone to the FBI YET? They are waiting, I can give you the agents to contact with your insider information that Murkowski is corrupt
Its time for you to fo the right thing now isnt it?
Or were you just lying again?
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:47 pmThe “contract” thing is not at all uncommon.
For the record, I will offer 10 to 1 against the idiotic claim that epwj made. Of all of the wild bs claims it has made, those last few comments just might be the most remarkable.
Never mind, the Breitbart indictment and O’Keefe committing a national security violation were the worst, but this is close. Damn close.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:48 pmTalk about babbling bullcrap a guy states that someone is corrupt then denies he said it then when the link is posted then he says well, gee I did mean it but wont send his evidence of corruption to the feds
So people just gotta say hmmmmm
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:49 pmAll right, knock it off. JD is not a liar.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:49 pmI again apologize to everyone for the obsessive imbecile.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:51 pmJD,
So what did you mean for the record when you said that I supported a corrupt establishment politician refering to Murkowski
So – are you saying that this was an total lie by you?
Are you now admitting that you are nothing but a liar?
Seems like that to me..
Oh sure bring up other things to distract from the fact that you lied about a sitting US Senator?
Look “Bunnies!”
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:52 pmSo what did you mean babbling Jeffy follower? You mean you dont mean what you say?
Or you do mean what you say unless you are called on it?
JD, seriously – Do… you…. have…. any….. evidence…. of …. corruption…. by…. Senator…. Murkowski…. and….. this …. “Establishment”
If so the FBI will listen – attentively
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:54 pmCorrupt establishment is a not uncommon phrase used to describe the politicos. I have explained that multiple times. You inability to comprehend is your problem, but sadly, you are holding forth on this everywhere. I did not lie, you are dumb.
Ten to one on your claim above. Yes or no.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:55 pmJD
Only need to apologize to yourself, you wrote that she was a corrupt establishment non-conservative
So, when are you sending this evidence to the Feds?
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:55 pmJD
Corruption is a crime – you have said that what – in effect that you are a liar but a colorful one?
Do… you…. have… nay…. evidence…. to… back… up…. your…. assertion…. that Murkowski….. is…. a…. corrupt….. politician…..
ANY… anything
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:58 pmI promise to everyone that I will do my best to ignore this gibbering gibbon. It is obviously not well. However, holding my tongue in the face of dishonesty and idiocy is not a strength of mine.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:59 pmJD,
Where is your proof? Corruption is a crime, how did you uncover it? Where did you uncover it? Look I personally do not want to know but the FEDS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation – wants this information
BADLY!
And know you are saying that you do have it! – please, do the right thing!
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:00 pm1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.
So, even the dictionary thinks you are an idiot.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:01 pmJD
As you said you stand by what you said. The statement from the FBI website indeed says that corruption in politicians is their number one priority
they…. are…. waiting…..
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:01 pmPatterico asked you to stop, but apparently it will take a Chang in the dosage of your meeds. Corrupt does not exclusively mean criminal, and I have repeatedly explained what I said to you. Go donate to Scozzafava. Go find a pharmacy that is open. Pass out.just shut up.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:02 pmJD
All of those except the bad sewing skills are/is/can be federal crimes – its not up to you to decide – just turn over your evidence and let the professionals make the decisions
Please turn over your evidence to the authorities – no tip however seeming tame is unimportant
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:04 pmI am unaware that he asked me to – maybe you should stop lying about candidates? and me as well
EricPWJohnson (d0c3b6) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:05 pm149 read it, then pass out.
Being unethical is not a crime. Lacking integer, not a crime. Dishonest can be, but for the most part, it is not, or you would be a lifer in a Peruvian prison. Debased, depraved, tainted, etc … also not criminal. I will not explain again. Get help.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:15 pmepwj, JD didn’t lie. You, however, have lied. Do we really need this hashed out over and over again?
Stop trying to win vendettas this way. It doesn’t work.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:23 pmJD is a liar, Patterico. You knock it off! He accused Murkowski of being “corrupt.” When speaking about politicians this usually has a very specific meaning, which was not true. He lied. He is backpedalling, and you are sticking up for him? What a loser.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:40 pmEricPWJohnson, I’m no fan of JD, but it seems to me he was expressing his opinion on Senator Murkowski (and I have nothing against her personally: After the issues with Miller’s honesty and misuse of his co-worker’s computers came out, I could see where a reasonable Republican would vote for her over Miller).
But where did JD accuse Murkowski of a specific crime? He may have just thought her values were deficient (i.e., corrupt) for, for example, running in the GOP primary, losing, and running against the GOP nominee in the primary. And didn’t she say she wouldn’t do that?
I’m not saying JD was right to call her corrupt, but he didn’t say he had proof of her corruption sufficient to bring to the FBI, now, did he?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:42 pmMy opinion is that JD is a lying criminal douchebag who is extremely corrupt and likes to eat babies. I am just expressing my opinion…
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:43 pmOh, wait, I was lying at the same time, just like JD.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:44 pmChris Hooten,
Coming from someone who sticks up for the partner of a convicted bomber and terrible liar, I don’t think I need your lectures.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:44 pmMy opinion is that Brett Kimberlin is a convicted violent criminal and a liar, and Chris Hooten sticks up for his partner Brad Friedman.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:45 pmAnd about this whole cheerleader thing. For Christ’s sake! All she did was sit down for one cheer. I think the situation should have warranted her being allowed to do that. But that is just way too much common sense.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:46 pmI think there is a very high probability Christine O’Donnell is corrupt, or would have been easily corruptible in office, which is one of the reasons I don’t blame Delaware for electing the “bearded Marxist” (itself, taken out context). But I have no evidence of specific crimes.
Lies is another story. And a person could colloquially call her corrupt based on lying about her education even without the allegations she misused campaign funds by her own, conservative, former campaign manger from 2 years ago.
Others would defend her. But it wouldn’t be a “lie” to express that opinion. A slur, maybe.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:47 pmI think Patterico is an idiot for still pushing the six degrees of separation guilt by association hogwash.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:48 pmOkay, my comment was way off topic, although I presented it both to “harp” on something I care about, and also as an example that two people can hold different opinions on the same person without lying.
If JD had accused Murkowski of a specific crime without evidence then I’d go with “liar” or at least slanderer.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:49 pmYou did not outright claim she was corrupt, as JD did with Murkowski, with no evidence whatsoever, and then a heavy backpedal, and a kiss from patterico.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:49 pmIt is telling that the grand jury, whose burden of proof is very low, did not return a bill of indictment, despite the procedures heavily one-sided in favor of the state.
I would not say that this girl is lying, but Duke University and Timothy Cole are proof that some girls do lie about rape.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:51 pmHooten,
Please explain the “six” degrees. You support Friedman. Friedman is partners with, and bases many of his little voting conspiracy theories on the work of, one Brett Kimberlin. Who is a convicted bomber and a bad liar.
What did I just say that was not true? Nothing.
You lack the courage to opine on Kimberlin so you dishonestly pretend he has nothing to do with your hero Friedman.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:52 pmHooten, this is my blog, and I have asked you some questions. They are fair questions and I want direct answers.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:54 pmI again apologize that this thread got derailed by that craziness. Epwj has good company with hootenanny.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:57 pmBy show of hands, who can say that they know someone that has been convicted of drug smuggling? Bombing peole? Sit down, Barcky and Freidman, I said by show of hands.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:59 pmHow about perjury?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:01 pmNo, but my opinion is that she [O’Donnell] is financially corrupt. Not “beyond a shadow of a doubt” level certainty, but “balance of probabilities” level certainty.
I have expressed, without qualification, decidedly negative opinions of the current President. I am speaking in terms of my opinion or judgement then, not necessarily saying I have FBI-level proof (and seriously, the FBI would be very reluctant to move).
One of my opinions is that William Ayers, a domestic terrorist whom Barack Obama lied about the depth and nature of his association with, authored Obama’s 2 political career-building autobiographies. I believe the President associated with radicals who wished to use political violence in the United States, before and after seizing control of the levers of power (Prairie Fire). There is no evidence the President personally supports these policies based on how he has conducted himself in office, but I have severe qualms about him based on his choice of associates.
Am I a liar? Or is this my honest judgement as to what is most likely true given limited info?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:02 pmAre you kidding me? The point is that you are trying to make me look bad because I very occasionally read brad blog, and apparently brad is involved with a completely different site that I don’t read, and he started it up with that convicted bomber guy, but he claims he only met brad once. I don’t know about that site, I don’t read it, I don’t know that other guy, and I rarely go to brad blog but you have the temerity to try and make me look bad in such a pathetic way through vague associations spanning two websites and three people? Are you sure you are a lawyer?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:05 pmHe didn’t.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:05 pmActually I should have qualified that: are you sure you are a GOOD lawyer?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:06 pmAnyhow, corruption is a huge problem in our government and I think it’s a pervasive problem where money is funneled in exchange for campaign support. Murkowski is an extremely legitimate example.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:07 pmLook, if JD is allowed to have his ridiculous opinion of corruption, you certainly have no place to whine about others having the opinion that JD is a liar.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:08 pmHahahahahahahahaha.
You, my friend, are a liar. And a bad one.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:09 pmwhen did I go there last? I used to frequent there more long ago, but I rarely go there now at all. Proof, please, or an apology.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:11 pmChris Hooten, do you think Karl Rove stole the 2004 election? Do you think Karl Rove conspired to kill a man who was going to testify about that theft?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:11 pmYou called someone a liar. Show me some links to back up your claims.
I see no backpedal from JD whatsoever.
Your initial comments on Patterico.com were screaming about how you were being moderated, when actually the blog just automatically filtered profanity and your comments were released.
What do you say about Brad Friedman censoring any mention of Brett Kimberlin or Velvet Underground? You were so outspoken about this issue when it kept “sh&t” out, but you don’t seem to care when a supposed voter fraud blog omits mention of his partner on that very issue… a partner described convincingly as a con artist.
Why so inconsistent? You can pretend there’s something unfair about bringing this to your attention and asking you about it… but there’s nothing unfair about it. People died and it’s worth discussing why Brad’s affiliated in the way he is.
It’s worth discussing how lefty astroturf is affiliated with a terrorist.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:11 pmDefine “long ago.”
Before I was banned, within the last year, you were there constantly.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:12 pmI did not outright claim she was corrupt, no matter how many times epwj says that , or how many times crissyhooten piles onto the crazy. I did not realize that the dictionary definition of corrupt was ridiculous. The leftists are going nut, moreso than normal.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:16 pmIn Chris Hooten’s defense, people still associate with Barack Obama says despite his associating with William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, and Jeremiah Wright. So while Hooten may well be trying to minimize his association with brad blog and mens rea and all of that. But I don’t know if we should condemn each other based on what we read. We have lots of reasons for reading it.
In Chris Hooten’s defense, people still associate with Barack Obama says despite his associating with William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, and Jeremiah Wright. So while Hooten may well be trying to minimize his association with brad blog and mens rea and all of that. But I don’t know if we should condemn each other based on what we read. We have lots of reasons for reading it.
Example: I spent about 2 hours researching Mohammed and Mohammed’s … tendencies … yesterday. That doesn’t mean I’m a supporter of either.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:18 pm“Do you think Karl Rove conspired to kill a man who was going to testify about that theft?
Comment by Patterico ”
Cliff’s psychotic story was absolutely horrible.
Brad Friedman is hardly being treated unfairly.
And those are reasonable questions to ask anyone who has left thousands of comments on bradblog.
Chris Hooten claims “I very occasionally read brad blog” I googled
And got about 3000 examples of comments. This is like me saying I only occasionally comment at Patterico’s blog.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:18 pmChristoph, that’s a good point. But we’re not pretending Chris is a terrorist. We’re not condemning him because of what he read.
I read Brad Blog and have left several comments there, too. But I don’t freak out when asked if I think Karl Rove stole the 2004 election and murdered a man to keep him silent.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:20 pmI said I go there rarely. I didn’t say I went there rarely. Present tense. It has been quite a while where I have been visiting infrequently. I don’t expect you to know that, but I expect you to check before calling me a liar. But then again, you tried to discolor my character by fallaciously suggesting that I have any association whatsoever with that bomber guy. That was really crappy of you, since you know damn well I have nothing to do with that. It is a form of lying in and of itself, since you KNOW that I have absolutely no association AT ALL.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:21 pmThat makes JD and Patterico a liar.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:25 pmHooten,
The association (your word, not mine) is that you have commented multiple times on several posts (one example here) regarding a Karl Rove conspiracy theory that was pushed in large part by Brett Kimberlin, a convicted perjurer and bomber on whose stories YOU YOURSELF relied when they were passed on by his partner Brad Friedman.
Now that you have learned more about Kimberlin, any second thoughts?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:27 pmIf I used to watch hundreds of hours of tv every week, and now I watch 3, is it wrong to state that “I rarely watch tv?” Come on, logic-impaired.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:27 pmContentless insults don’t stay.
Answer the questions and make substantive arguments.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:28 pmAgain: you fell for a conspiracy story spun by a convicted perjurer and bomber.
How does that make you feel, Chris Hooten?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:30 pmShow of hands, who frequents, or has frequented a blog whose proprietor is a partner with a convicted drug smuggler, bomber, and perjurer.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:30 pmCareful, Chinese and Iranian hackers might try to infiltrate your systems.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:36 pmSo, Patterico, now that you’re here, what’s your thought on the post topic? It seems to have been the comment-getter today.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:37 pmDespite the fact you are a lawyer, apparently you need a beginning logic class. I commented on articles at the brad blog a long time ago, yes. I still don’t see the connection with Kimberlin. Was I supposed to somehow magically know that he was pushing some of these ideas, because I didn’t, I’m not magic. But you think somehow I should have because… why again? Because it furthers your fallacious tangential associations matrix? Hell I don’t know. I even went back and didn’t see any comments by anyone named kimberlin or anything, even though I would have never recognized the name back then. What a bunch of crap. And my thoughts on the whole kimberlin thing are………… WTF does that have to do with me? I already told you how I felt. It was disturbing. But…. WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ME, MR LAWYER GUY WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO MAKE SUCH SPECIOUS MACHINATIONS OF SOME ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ME AND BRETT KIMBERLIN?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:38 pmUm, I don’t know what this food fight is all about.
But one, wholly apart from the merits, it just seems dumb to accuse webhost of evil stuff. I mean if you want to stick around. And every moment you are allowed to stay here is a credit to the host’s tolerance of your crap.
Two, Murky is corrupt as hell just because she accepted an appointment from her own father.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:38 pmHere is Hootie the Blowhard commenting at “Partners with Convicted Bomber” Friedman’s site on the 5th.
Of this month.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:39 pmFour days ago.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:40 pmYou find it disturbing, do you?
Have you told Brad?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:41 pmPatterico phrased the query really clearly and I hope it isn’t lost in the commenting back and forth.
Chris Hooten, you’ve been exposed to an extremely hard to believe story. It should matter a lot to you if it was pushed by a con artist. You should have a reaction to that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:41 pmWould someone else like to go tell Brad that Chris Hooten finds the Kimberlin thing “disturbing”?
I would, but I was banned for telling the truth.
If you do, make sure and spell Kimberlin with an asterisk or something, or your comment will be moderated.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:43 pmThe fact that you are pushing this speaks volumes about you, Patterico, and not good volumes.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:43 pmHe said time, Patterico. t is usually measured in seconds. Have you never taken physics?
Four days ago was lots of seconds ago. So Chris Hooten wasn’t so much lying about commenting on articles at brad blog long ago, it’s more like you’re completely being unreasonable to say four days isn’t “a long time ago”.
See?
I stood up for you Chris Hooten. Dissembler!
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:44 pmI commented on articles on Brad Blog thousands of times, including a few days ago.
How dare you call me a commenter of their site! You SOB LAWYEEEERRRRRR!
What does it have to do with you that you were discussing a completely BS story concocted by a con artist?
It doesn’t mean you are to blame, Chris. Patterico isn’t saying you are a terrorist. But if you found this extremely unlikely story credible despite knowing so little about where it came from, that shows a real problem in how you process information.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:44 pmAgain, contentless insults go bye-bye, Hooten.
Answer the questions.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:47 pmWow. Patterico, it always amazes me when someone criticizes a critic for “not checking” on something — knowing that the checking would make that someone look bad.
Sort of like Gary Hart challenging the press to follow him around.
Four days? Wow, that is a long time ago.
Eric Blair (ad3ef3) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:47 pmWhat does it say?
You are screaming like something horrible is being said about you, when really you’re simply being honestly affiliated with your own comments.
Why are you overreacting? If I knew someone attended a KKK rally I would ask them if they hate Blacks. It would be a legit question. If they don’t hate blacks, they are free to say so.
If someone comments a lot on Loose Change videos, I am justified to ask them how they feel about the guys who promoted them.
And it’s OK to ask you if you believe the specious claims of Brad Freidman and so-called con artist Brett Kimberlin, too, if you’ve commented thousands of times on bradblog.com
I just don’t understand why this makes Chris Hooten so upset. Not being sarcastic about this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:50 pmTry typing the name Bret Kimberoin in a comment there, crissyhooten. Your buddy Brad is going to great lengths to keep this association from seeing the light of day.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:50 pmhow many days before that? And how many days before that? I comment there about once every three weeks, maybe, probably not even that. You are questioning my character based on nonexistent associations between me and this Brett Kimberlin guy. And then Aaron has the nerve to threaten me because I get naturally pissed off at such bullshit? Give me a fucking break. You are on a losing track with this one. There is no association to be made. It is all horse manure. Comment on my comments, or my cussing, or my lack of decorum, or whatever, but don’t make up some bs about some association between me and that guy because I read brad blog sometimes. It is absolutely ludicrous, inaccurate, and stunningly inept coming from a legal type. If you want to ban me for pointing that out, so be it.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:51 pmA long time ago in a place far, far away, on Saturday across the street at my neighbor’s house … .
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:54 pmI can’t believe someone would seriously think it’s no big deal. This is extremely suspicious behavior. Charities with massive donations shouldn’t be hidden like that. Brad Freidman is listed as Director of Velvet Revolution on tax forms… and people should be able to determine if his claims come from a con artist, or why his organization shares an address with one.
If he had a decent explanation, he wouldn’t be behaving like this. He is hiding any mention because he has a lot to hide.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:54 pmWe asked you some simple questions. You are pretending this is some completely unreasonable witchhunt of your character instead of simply answering them.
You have commented thousands of times on this blog, and I want to know if you think Karl Rove killed a guy in order to cover up the supposed theft of the 2004 election.
Aaron’s threat is what? What are you talking about? Are you pretending his point that you’re a poor guest is a threat?
Why are you so unfair and inconsistent, Chris Hooten?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:57 pmIt’s nice to see folks like Mr Hooten hoisted by his own petard. He surely knows how silly he looks, yet he keeps posting. Remember how he originally portrayed himself?
Eric Blair (ad3ef3) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:58 pmAgain the same day on the 5th.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:59 pmPrissy Chrissy Hooter
I am not threatening you. I can’t control how Patterico might react, therefore I can’t say “Do X or don’t do X, or i will sick patterico on you.” i am just pointing out that you are playing with fire, here.
Seriously, if i see you walking along and i say to a you, “hey, careful not to kick that rattlesnake” am I threatening you? No, i am warning you. Big difference.
i mean Patterico seems to be pretty cool about letting others take him on, but everyone has a breaking point. That’s not a threat, that’s an observation, a warning. Sheesh, you try to help a guy come to his senses…
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:01 pmPatterico:
> Again the same day on the 5th.
Yes, but how many seconds? 😀
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:02 pmDustin, the reason it pisses me off is that it is a good example of what people do on this board. Shoot the messenger at all cost, right or wrong, ignore the message. I have absolutely no idea where anyone thought I had anything to do about that guy; I didn’t even know about him until recently. Yet somehow, people claim that I am somehow associated with that guy because I read brad blog . Of course I am going to call anyone that makes that kind of an idiotic association an idiot, whether they own the blog or not, mainly because they are being an idiot in making such statements. When someone feels they are losing a debate, or might lose a debate, they start pulling weak-sauce stunts like this, throwing mud and seeing what sticks. This kind of shit doesn’t stand in court, why do you think it is ok here, because the audience is more gullible? You would get in trouble for that kind of specious argument. But for some reason it is OK here. Bullshit. Fred reads Bill’s blog, and Jerry started another blog with Bill, and Jerry is a scumbag, so, obviously, Fred is a scumbag, too. Bullshit.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:04 pmHe’s the moron making specious association arguments about me, not the other way around, Aaron.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:05 pmI definitely do. I remember Stashiu3 working his ass off as the site was falling apart, assuring Chris Hooten his comments were not being content moderated (and repeatedly proving it to him). He was told his cussing triggered the spam filter.
Several hours later, Christoph completely misconstrued this and went on a rant about free speech. Now, when it’s pointed out he’s being tolerated despite being rude, he calls it a threat.
And when I tell Chris I was moderated for mentioning the name of an organization Brad is director of, he couldn’t care less. He’s outraged I’d even mention it, despite Chris mentioning far less egregious censorship to people who never heard of this blog.
I call that very unfair.
Some of Chris’s thousands of comments on bradblog, source of hysterical conspiracy theories, are difficult to understand.
I’m asking him if he thinks Karl Rove killed a man because that’s an issue he obviously is familiar with thanks to people I think are trying to con him. why is he freaking out about this?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:06 pmShow me this specious association argument, Chris.
Seems you’re just being asked a reasonable question.
Bradblog is extreme, and promotes some of the nastiest conspiracy theories out there. You’ve participated there thousands of times, but I’ve participated too. Patterico has too. We’re asking you if you believed a couple of the smears.
You are working up a frenzy in order to avoid answering a simple question. People are supposed to be willing to say what they think in discussion threads. You shouldn’t pretend you’re a victim.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:09 pmNote how Hooten keeps lying about why I bring this up.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:09 pmChris
Okay, let me ask a question. did you ever challenge this guy’s terrorist connections? i mean you commented as late as four days ago, and you know what patterico said here. so did you go, “hey, what is up with that?”
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:10 pmI would not question your character,crissyhooten, based on the people you choose to associate with. Your aggressive ignorance, on the other hand …
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:11 pmJim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”
The tale of how Jim DeMint scratched his name off the list of Presidential contenders who could unite the GOP and win centrists in the general election.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:11 pmI think someone should tell Brad that Hooten is disturbed by the Kimberlin thing.
Just to watch him backtrack over there.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:12 pmChristoph, are you going to post that in every single thread?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:12 pmWhy not?
I think it’s fair to question Friedman’s character (and Obama’s) for hanging out with a terrorist. It’s certainly a legitimate question. As are the ones we are asking Hooten.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:15 pmPosted under wrong thread inadvertently. Should be under authentic conservative thread, but it got eaten up by the spam filter. Or at least I think it did and I’ll check now.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:16 pmI replied to it in another thread.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:16 pmOk, well I obviously went there on the 5th, and made a few comments. And probably went there a few weeks earlier and made a few comments, etc. So I made a few comments on the 5th. I meant when did I go there before that ON ANOTHER DAY. What in the world is wrong with you? Making a few comments on the same day I went to the blog proves… that I went to the blog that day. What, I can only make one comment per day that I rarely go there to be considered going there rarely? That is just stupid logic. I GO THERE RARELY. When I go there, I might make a few comments. Not a lot, usually, but a few. That does not mean that I go there more than rarely, does it, logic-impaired? Why don’t you try parsing what I say, rather than what you thought I said. I didn’t say I comment rarely, or that I went there rarely, I said that I go there rarely. But I guess I am a big liar, because of the obtuseness of the audience.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:17 pmI, for one, think this is a clumsy effort to make the post headline relevant to where the discussion has taken us.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:18 pmIt may be fair to question Friedman’s character, as he has a direct association with him. However, it is asinine to try and associate me in any way, shape, or form, because I have read Freidman’s blog that is different from the one he started with that guy. This character assassination by third-party associations is growing tiring. Only a jerk would do that.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:21 pmWhy do these weird rules of discourse matter at all?
You comment there all the time. Thousands of times. Sometimes you go a few weeks between commenting… so what? You’re completely avoiding the relevant aspect of the discussion anyway. You obviously are very familiar with Brad Friedman. He’s got extremely poor character, by way of his association with a particularly scary and dishonest criminal, and also by the way he hides information about it.
You are right to find that disturbing. Do you think Karl Rove killed someone? Just admit you do. You would have said you didn’t by now if you didn’t, right?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:22 pmChris
So that means you HAVEN’T challenged friedman about his associations?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:23 pmWhat about Kimberlin’s role in the conspiracy theories you have bought off on?
We have brought that up, what, a dozen times now?
And you’re still ignoring the point.
Shall we bring it up a dozen more times?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:24 pmBTW, JD, is reading someones blog “associating” with them? That would mean that any scumbag that reads this blog would be automatically associated with Patterico, which is ridiculous, and clearly illustrates the logical fallacy that I am talking about. But if you want to take it that far… Kimberlin actually posted here… Making Patterico far more associated with the convicted bomber than I.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:26 pmI was joking, Patterico. Actually, he has very little appreciable character, or has demo nitrated very little.
I tried to leave a comment at bradblog, but it went into moderation, forever, because it contained a variation of the Kimberlin name.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:27 pmActually, he may not have posted here, P may have posted his emails, but he obviously read the blog…
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:28 pm246 crissyhooten – that is silly.does the host have a partner that is a convicted bomber, drug smuggler, and perjurer? Do you Patterico?! I demand answers.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:30 pmIdiocy ensues. Epwj and crissyhooten are nothing if not predictable.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:32 pmI believe I have been quite clear in denouncing convicted bomber and perjurer Kimberlin.
Hooten has been quite mealy-mouthed. I think he is scared to denounce the bomber because he might offend his hero Brad.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:32 pmHe actually recieved *gasp* email from the convicted bomber, who reads this blog. He even *gasp* responded to him, which is far more interaction than I ever have had. Heck, face it, Patterico is far more associated with the convicted bomber than I am, why arent’ we making hay about that association. It clearly is much closer. He clearly knows much more about the convicted bomber that he is associated with than me, also.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:34 pmI think 249 raises an important point. Patterico, I’ve been told you associate with gang members, sometimes sitting in the same room as them day after day!
That’s exactly the same as Brad Friedman and Bree Kimberlin founding an organization together.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:34 pmBrett
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:35 pmHis original reaction was meh. Only when presed did he become disturbed.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:36 pmWhat’s so annoying about people who act like jerks is that they then pretend someone else is a jerk.
You’ve been much harsher and far more judgmental of folks than P is being to you. But your idea of right and wrong seems to be ad hoc.
You are legitimately being associated with a blog you have contributed to thousands of times. This is not asinine.
I believe Brett’s most relevant problem is that he lies a lot. I think Bradblog’s got a lot of those lies all over it and I think Brett has actively participated in bradblog. While no one is allowed to discuss Velvet Underground on Brad Blog, there is a sidebar mentioning The BRAD BLOG is a co-founder of VelvetRevolution.us.
Looking over your comments, you really are aggressively unreasonable. Mere accusations by a democrat are “well established” and only denied by “morons”.
But ironclad proof that a blog you participated on thousands of times is associated, in its own sidebar, with Brett Kimberlin’s organization? That’s specious? Why?
You level some of the nastiest and most specious associations, don’t you, Chris Hooten? Why are pretending being asked some questions is unfair?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:36 pmThey both have read this blog, and interacted with Patterico through email, so I think the association is quite obvious. That makes him double-dog associated with terrible people, right?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:37 pmI’ve seen a lot of people have that response about torture and using confessions so gained at trial.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:37 pmOh good Allah.receiving anemailthreatening a lawsuit is the exact same thing as knowingly becoming a partner with a drug smuggling bombing perjurer.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:38 pmNo, Christoph, that was our collective response to you distracting from the topic so you could,once again, try to claim your superiority. Meh, indeed.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:39 pmOne thing that is really remarkable about reading over Chris Hooten’s comments is how in many threads someone will try to make a sane point. They are instantly warned about the “rules for commenting” which include not spreading ‘knowing disinformation’. One example of knowing disinformation is when I posted links to dozens of convictions for election fraud by liberal democrats.
Why is that disinformation? Not because it isn’t true.
Anyway, it’s quite clear that Bradblog is just like many other extreme left sites that will ban any heretics. Chris Hooten has seen that several times and is afraid of displeasing his master.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:41 pmHooten ignores the issue for the umpteenth time. This is no accident. He is, as JD would say, aggressively dishonest.
We all notice, Hooten.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:42 pmHooten ignores the issue for the umpteenth time. This is no accident. He is, as JD would say, aggressively dishonest.
We all notice, Hooten.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:42 pmI did not know about any association between friedman and Kimmerlin until a few weeks ago. We are talking about two different web sites, you do understand that, right? I went to brad blog. I did not go to the other one, and did not know anything about Kimmerlin. Yet you want to make the argument that somehow I should have known about him, even though you didn’t know shit about him, either. BTW some gay person was having jeff gannon/James Guckert sleep over in the white house. SOMEONE DID. You decide who it was. There is no debate about whether a male prostitute got a press pass under questionable circumstances with a fresh website, and did not sign in and out of the whitehouse properly, and was given special access. I’m sorry, but it is true.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:43 pmRaise your hand if you are fooled by Hooten’s childishly specious arguments.
I see no hands.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:43 pmThe fucking issue is that you are unfairly libeling me, and I would like you to stop, immediately.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:43 pmJD
> does the host have a partner that is a convicted bomber, drug smuggler, and perjurer? Do you Patterico?! I demand answers.
Okay, I confess. I am a terrorist. You see, I was known as the GI Joe crotch bomber. I would take an explosive and put it in the crotches of Duke, Snake Eyes, and Scarlet… all to aid a terrorist known only as Cobra Commander.
And did i mention i was a kid when i did this, and the bombs were firecrackers?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:44 pmTruth? HOOTIE CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!
Milky boogers, baby, the only way to go!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:46 pmJD, I didn’t have any associations with Kimmerlin. Do you understand? You keep jumping between him, and Friedman, and then somehow me, because I read Friedman’s other blog, which is ridiculous. I get the association between Friedman and Kimmerlin, but the association between Kimmerlin and Patterico is far stronger than Kimmerlin and me. That is my point. There is no association to me, it is made up hogwash. Of course there is no association with Patterico, either. At least he had direct contact with the offending person, though, unlike me, who just read the blog of someone else that co-founded a different web site with him. You may have a poor guilt-by-association argument with Friedman, but extending it to me is sheer folly.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:52 pmPatterico – why are you ignoring my question?! Do you have a drug smuggler bombing perjurer as a partner? do you ? Do you ?! answer me !!!!!!!!!
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:52 pmIt’s downright comical that you’re still pretending this is the issue, when you’re being asked direct and reasonable questions.
You come across very poorly in this thread, especially in light if your commenting history.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:58 pmAnd it’s spelled Brett Kimberlin.
You already knew that, Chris Hooten.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:59 pmI never said you did, crissy. I said you hangout at a blog where the proprietor is partners with him. You inability to read is tiresome.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:59 pmWhy does bradblog censor people and why does he not believe in freedom of speech and why is crissyhooten trying to be so dumb and why is epwj stupider than a sack of hootens?
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:02 pmWaste of time. Sheesh. All because of JD, who associates with friends (Patterico) of a convicted federal criminals (James O’Keefe) and a known liar and discredited bullshit peddler (Breitbart). Hmm, how does that feel? It feels like bullshit, doesn’t it?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:03 pmWho is Margi Lowry?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:03 pmShe designs your clothes, Christoph.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:05 pmGoodnight, racists.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:06 pmGoodnight you grumpy far-knocker.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:08 pmlol “fart-knocker”
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:08 pmPUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
This thread (as titled) ended at post #145, with the exception of a relevant post at #177.
You may now return to the events post #145.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:10 pmSorry, that should have been “post post #145”, or “after post #145” or “after #145”.
You may now continue.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:12 pmI’m leaving, but I wanted to know how the raccoons are doing, MD. Hopefully they have moved out?
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:13 pmPlease explain how I am libeling you. You are a fan of Brad Friedman. You have bought off on conspiracy theories propounded by Friedman with the help of convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin. You dishonestly ignore this issue and repeatedly claim this is a mere guilt by association rap, where we try to tar you by associating you with a blog you hardly visit, no more than a few thousand times, and where you certainly have not commented recently, unless you count those two times in the last five days.
That about sum it up? I think so. And the libel is where, precisely?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:15 pmBut, what about the poor cheerleader?
Someone, somewhere wants to know.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:22 pmA. The Ohio results of the election were mysteriously routed through the gwb.com network that was used by the bush administration as an illegal way of communicating with each other where there would be no record of it.
B. Mike Connell (Bush’s IT expert that set up gwb.com) expressed fear for his life, and that he had been threatened right before he died in a weird plane crash.
C. Paperwork appeared that seemed to show a “hit” on him. People familiar with such paperwork said it appeared to be genuine.
D. With all of these things going on, it is not surprising that I would have been involved with some discussion of it at the time.
E. Many people were aware of these issues, not just “Kimmerlin” who I had never heard of.
F. What kind of logic makes me associated with Kimmerlin because all this? A: faulty logic.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:35 pmBarf, its conspiracy corner.
You know, most of the Bush conspiracy theorists stopped this crap when Bush peacefully left office without a peep.
No, wait, maybe that is because he wanted obama to be president. its perfect. they find the most incompetent boob alive, make him president, and then halliburton intentionally spills oil, and by the time its all over, people have decided never to let a democrat be president. its ingenious!
(and yes, i am making fun of you, Prissy Chrissy)
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:39 pmMD at 282
you mean you read all of this?
Wow.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:41 pmDude, Patterico, just don’t associate me with Kimmerlin, it is inaccurate and asinine. Could you please not do it? I don’t know him, I have never read articles by him, I have never had email exchanges with him (unlike you) and I didn’t know about any association between him and Friedman until recently, and yet you insist on making the connection that doesn’t exist. It is a form of character assassination. If I don’t know the guy, or the ideas he peddled, or anything about the site he co-founded, why do you insist on making the connection? It is ridiculous and insulting, and you insist that I somehow should have magically known all this. Well hogwash.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:43 pmKimberlin, Chris Hooten, but you knew that.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:48 pmNo, that was not an intentional misspelling. My bad. I should have noticed the spelling in other comments.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:53 pmI think his paranoid spew of Kimberlin’s lies speaks for itself.
“Genuine looking paperwork shows a hit on him”
I think this kind of crap speaks for itself. Chris Hooten is delusional and has been conned into believing some stuff that is as horrible as it is stupid.
Anyone who believes Cliff’s claims has made a mistake.
I just wanted to note that Chris actually does know how to spell “Kimberlin”, but for some silly reason, he, like Brad Friedman, hates seeing the name spelled correctly. Just seems funny in a pathetic way.
It’s so surprise that Chris has chatted with Brett Kimberlin many times without actually knowing it, since Brad Friedman has painstakingly hidden this fact. Except he’s been so dishonest in this thread I’m not sure if it’s because he’s defensive out of paranoid stupidity (see #287) or if he’s actually just playing dumb.
Anyhow, Chris Hooten, you are associated with Brad Friedman by thousands of your own actions. Unlike the insane theory you just repeated, Brad Friedman actually is associated with a violent criminal whose bombs put a man in his grave, I suspect because he wanted to cover up the execution style shooting of an old woman who wanted to stop Brett Kimberlin from absconding with a young girl.
Chris Hooten knows that Brad Friedman associates with a secretive con artists who invents smears for money (as covered in Citizen K). And yet he parrots some more smears as though it’s gospel.
That’s either dishonesty or senselessness.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:55 pmOK. I’ll take you at your word, but it was pretty weird given how many times you’ve read it and how weird Brad is about the name being spelled out.
I’m going out on a limb to believe you, given your strange concept of truth, but no big deal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:56 pmEven I spelled it right in some posts. What a fail on my part.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:57 pmA: Fire doesn’t melt steel
B: The WTC or something houses lots of gold as seen in Die Hard 3
C: Genuine looking documents suggest Hillary is a lizard
D: Body thetans
E: stand for elephant
F: How does this relate to you claiming Chewbacca, a wookie, from the planet Kashyyk, is also from the Endor moon where the Ewoks are from? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
I rest my case. Look at the silly monkey!
/head explodes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:00 pmChris Hooten – Have you ever bought any dope from Kimberlin?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:01 pmChris, sometimes it seems like there’s a reasonable person in there. Your defense is not related to the claims against you, which is basically that you’re a fan of Brad Friedman. Brad’s lack of character is established easily. You may be convinced, but you’re wrong.
Especially about Cliff’s nonsense. You probably are just an honest but gullible person who didn’t want elections stolen and bought a progressively more stretched series of lies. You should resent the hell out of Brad associating with a con artist and spewing lies about something this important.
Brett Kimberlin is actively trying to shut down this discussion, and you should demand anyone wanting an honest discussion of our elections disavow from that kind of thug. Just ignore the partisan implications, which really aren’t significant anyway, and ask for honesty instead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:06 pmI say this despite the fact that you were obviously dishonest in this thread and a few others, and obviously treat others to a completely different standard than you live up to.
but I’m trying to be charitable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:07 pmbtw, I do not speak for anyone but me. I don’t represent anyone I work for or the blog owner.
I think Brett Kimberlin is a murderer.
I think he is a very careful, but exposed, con artist.
Anyone closely associated with Kimberlin, especially for the purpose of raising funds for Kimberlin’s charities, such as Brad Friedman, is presumably dishonorable. One of these charities, VR, hides how it compensates Brett. When you ask for more information, Brad deletes the comment. When you even mention Brett, Brad deletes the comment.
Charities should be transparent, but the director of Velvet Underground deletes the name of his own charity because he can’t answer my questions.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:13 pmExcuse me, Velvet Revolution is the name of the charity rather than Velvet Underground.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:14 pmChris Hooten – Have you ever contributed to Velvet Revolution or Justice Through Music?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:32 pmLook, I don’t care about conspiracy theories that much. I am concerned with election integrity and election manipulation through computers. it is a terrifyingly real possibility. Internet voting is the stupidest idea, ever. That is begging to have the vote hacked and manipulated, but using computers at all, much less windows-based pc’s in the counting process is a very bad idea. I support hand counted paper ballots. They count them in other countries by hand faster than we can count them on the damn machines. Not just paper ballots, but hand-counted paper ballots, with many observers from all parties. That is a truly transparent election process that is difficult to manipulate at all, much less on a small scale. I don’t care about all that other stuff. I don’t get where some of you get off telling me what to do, and what I should care about, just because you have made some logically challenged association between me and Kimberlin. (There I didn’t switch the “m” and “b” accidentally.) Whatever.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:36 pm“much less on a large scale” der.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:37 pmI have participated as a partisan observer during two elections counting ballots and this system works well. The ballots should also be standardized so they’re easy for everyone, in every state, to understand.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:42 pmChris, indeed a lot of people, from Glenn Reynolds to my liberal ex girlfriend, believe in paper ballots, hand counted.
That’s no excuse for the conspiracy theories that harm real people to enrich real people. This isn’t some abstract distraction… it’s the center of what Kimberlin does for a living.
There’s no reason to destroy the credibility of the true vote movement with smears. And all people working for Velvet Revolution, including the director, deserve to be held accountable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:46 pmNo, I have never donated to them, lol. I probably visited it once briefly, but I’m not really sure, maybe not. I have never donated to any political organization, or politician, or political parties or anything. I might have thrown brad five bucks once, but directly to him through his email, and it was years ago. Whatever.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:48 pmChris Hooten,
So you say you’ve given money to a known associate of a suspected murderer, large-scale drug smuggler, bomber, and convicted perjurer? You also say you might have visited with him, but yu don’t remember?
You don’t give any money to political causes and that is your priority? Supporting a Brett Kimberlin associate?
Wow. Just wow.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:55 pm“Not just paper ballots, but hand-counted paper ballots, with many observers from all parties. That is a truly transparent election process that is difficult to manipulate at all,”
Chris Hooten – Don’t you mean not difficult to manipulate at all? Just look at all those bags of uncounted ballots Democrats keep finding in the trunks of cars and other places in close races around the country. I’m not amazed at all Brad is against electronic voting.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:55 pmIt was pretty amazing how they decided to just photocopy ballots and then found sacks of them.
And it happens every year.
And paper ballots only solve the ‘diebold!’ problem. They don’t solve the scam of flooding thousands of BS registrations and then having a few dishonest partisans here or there voting in their place at the end of the day. It doesn’t solve the problem of people registering under multiple names, or thousands of illegal felon votes being cast.
But it’s a lot saner than the conspiracy smears and phoney murder accusations against Karl Rove, I’ll admit happily. It’s a shame the DOJ is actively fighting against clearing the voter rolls of fakes, and that something like an ID requirement is leading to screams, but it sounds like a compromise on elections could be reached.
Paper ballots, verified registrations, ID requirements. Prison sentences for false registrations or false votes. Longer sentences for election worker frauds, and tests of the system.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:07 pmThe problem is many of the voter rolls were purged in an odd manner, like “bruce james” would also purge “james bruce” and crap like that. I think it only had to match like 80% or something, and the names were transposable like above, leading to many, many people being purged who shouldn’t have been.
The safest, most secure, and most transparent method for elections is hand counted paper ballots. Computerized counters are so easily manipulated that the entire election could be hacked leaving only unusual exit poll discrepancies and some statistical evidence of something not being right, but no other evidence whatsoever. Exit polls should not deviate more than a fraction of a percent. When they do it is a serious red flag of something being awry.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:22 pm“Exit polls should not deviate more than a fraction of a percent.”
Complete bunk.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:33 pm“and then having a few dishonest partisans here or there voting in their place at the end of the day.”
Dustin – Why does it even have to be the end of the day if you can “find” ballots. Also, with the way Dems are running their GOTV operations they are getting better at knowing who has and has not voted, so the ability for substituting for lazy voters, especially with no voter ID requirements improves. Another reason the left opposes voter ID.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:37 pmOnly since Bush has that been considered bunk, and they have stopped releasing the raw exit poll data, and now “massage” the exit poll data with the actual vote coming in, making it more closely match the results. This is a terrible idea, there is no reason to corrupt the exit poll data. Historically exit polls are phenomenally correct within a fraction of a percent, worldwide… until very recently, and only in the US. Pretty odd.
Not releasing precinct level results before they are reported (if at all) is a terrible idea too, as this provides another means of finding fraud through statistical analysis. Nobody listens to the statistical evidence of fraud anyways, sigh. They just boo-hoo it, and say you wear tin foil hats, because they aren’t familiar with just how accurate exit polls are, and always have been, except maybe since we started using computers.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:42 pmAgreed.
This is yet another myth meant to prove Bush and Rove stole elections. Exit polls suck. I’d be much more suspicious if they were so close, given how I’d never answer one.
We need an overhaul of the voter registration process. Acorn proved it’s completely breakable. We sent dozens of Acorn workers to prison for it, but they have SEIU or Mi Familia Vota or whatnot.
I’d be happy if registering to vote was the same process as registering for an ID, requiring detailed information and showing up in person to the DMV. It should be a government expense. You show the ID to vote. You have to swear out an affidavit to vote absentee, and your reason is investigated.
If you are not eligible to vote, your ID says so. There would be no need for voter registration drives or frauds.
I think paper ballots and this reasonable reform would lead to fewer fraudulent votes. We still have the concern of bags and boxes of ballots showing up. Possession of ballots out of the proper chain of custody should be a serious crime rather than a ‘ooops! did I do that?’
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:44 pmThe reason voter id is not legal is because it costs money to get an id, and so it is discrimination against the poorest of all. You may not like that reason, but that is the reason. If they handed out free voting id cards it might be different.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:44 pmThat’s a disturbing point, and I think it’s valid.
My point about waiting until the end of the day is that an unscrupulous election worker knows exactly who hasn’t voted at the end of the day, can sign them all in, and vote. This is why rules for election workers (such as two people signing each voter in) should be strictly enforced… but they rarely are.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:47 pmObviously this is why I said the ID should be at government expense. That’s the only reason I said that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:47 pmExit polls do not “suck.” They are essential to a healthy democracy and are the prime method for finding problems with elections, and work extremely well, unless you ignore the anomalies. There is no credible debunking of exit polls, or why they would be different from the actual results. NONE. They still use them in all the other countries, and we, the US, often cite them as reasons for not trusting the results of foreign elections. I don’t know when people became so stupid and gullible here in the US, but other countries think we are idiots for not seeing the problem with using them to say other elections were rigged, but then blowing them off in our own elections.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:50 pmAnd I do not agree with the Al Gore Sr Poll Tax idea at all, but we already expect citizens to have ID.
The argument that there are all these votes who have absolutely no ID, and vote only because they can do so without having to pay the $11 for an ID, is really really weak.
I think democrats are afraid scummier people are a bit more intimidated from showing an ID. Maybe they have a warrant out or owe child support or are ineligible to vote.
But that concern is outweighed by the concern that people are who they say they are when they show up to vote. They already must identify themselves… it’s just that some places don’t ask for much proof they are telling the truth.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:51 pmNo they suck because they are very inaccurate. You miss the point for no apparent reason whatsoever.
The way exit polls are conducted is strongly unscientific. You can insult this country as idiots if that makes you feel better, but Bush didn’t steal any elections, anyway. Get over it. Kerry sucked too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:52 pmOh, sorry Dustin, I didn’t see that. I wasn’t aware they were pushing for that kind of ID, I thought they were just pushing for using regular driver’s licenses and state id’s, hence the problem. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with government purchased id’s, except maybe the cost.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:53 pmunscientific? They randomly ask people after they vote who they voted for. How is that unscientific? Exit polls have a long history of being extremely accurate, and not “sucking.” Extremely accurate. If someone tells you otherwise, they are lying.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:55 pmI didn’t say Bush stole an election. There is, however, numerous evidence that something went awry, especially in swing states. They will be studying it 50-100 years from now.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/9/2010 @ 11:58 pm“There is no credible debunking of exit polls, or why they would be different from the actual results.”
Hooten – You obviously know nothing about statistical sampling. Exit polling is not random or statistically significant. There is no reason for its results to match actual results except by accident. No debunking is required. You have been brainwashed.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:08 am“Only since Bush has that been considered bunk, and they have stopped releasing the raw exit poll data, and now “massage” the exit poll data with the actual vote coming in, making it more closely match the results.”
Hootie – Think about the above statement. It just screams about how crappy exit polling results are if they have to massage the results. If the results are massaged, it is no longer exit polling, it has become something else, some kind of a model. THINK before you spew.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:14 am*I’ve* been brainwashed? Yeah right. How can you make the statement that there is no reason for its results to match actual results except by accident? Are you suggesting people would lie on an exit poll? Why in the world would they do that? They know it is being used to check the accuracy of the election. I stand by the statement that there is no credible debunking of exit polling. I don’t even know why you would think that. They have always matched the results, and not by accident, and extremely accurately. They have always worked fantastically as a red flag for election fraud. Ignore them at your peril.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:15 amThey don’t have to massage the results unless the election results are bunk.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:16 amAssuming the exit polls are wrong is the “safe” thing to do, and much less stressful than dealing with the can of worms that election fraud represents. We will have to deal with it eventually, and exit polls will be a key tool in cleaning up the mess. There is no reason to assume the results are accurate on a computer-based vote counting system. There is no way to tell that the votes in the computer match the intent of the voter… other than exit polls, especially on direct recording election devices (with no paper ballot). If every 30th vote for one candidate is flipped for another, that creates about a 3% discrepancy from exit polls. It doesn’t sound like much, but that is a huge discrepancy.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:22 amI probably won’t respond to anymore comments, I am not dodging questions… Good night.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:28 amNo, Cristoph, I just read that comment above. I didn’t know anything about Kimberlin 2 or 3 years ago when I gave brad 5 bucks. Brad was covering election integrity issues that I cared about. I said that I might have visited the site velvetrevolution like once a long time ago, but I’m not sure, I didn’t read it or anything. I was trying to have full disclosure. I might have gone to that site and seen the front page, I don’t remember. I gave 5 bucks to brad like 2 or 3 years ago. Big deal. I have never met, or conversed with, or emailed, or read anything from, or even knew of until a few weeks ago Brett Kimberlin. Sheesh. Can’t I be more clear about that. I gave brad 5 bucks to support bradblog.com, which at the time was almost exclusively covering election integrity issues. In other words, I never gave money to a known (to me) associate of a convicted bomber, since I knew nothing about that until very recently. Give me a break… What you want me to ask for my 5 bucks back now, lol.
Chris Hooten (11ee1d) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:36 amThe United States Constitution is federal law and protects individuals (in this case, the cheerleader) from government (in this case, the public school).
Well, in theory.
Comment by Kman — 11/9/2010 @ 12:02 pm
— In theory, you’ve actually read the Constitution; right?
Well of course you have! That’s how you know where to point out “separation of church and state” to Christine O’Donnell; right?
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/10/2010 @ 12:57 amHooten hasn’t visited bradblog in at least 6 monkeyspanks*.
[*special hoot-owl unit of time]
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/10/2010 @ 1:00 amHer first amendment rights amount to nothing? She is not a school employee. Isn’t paid by the school.
Curtis (81af5c) — 11/10/2010 @ 1:28 amThank . . . GOD that happyfeet came along just to label the other cheerleaders on the squad as “skanks”!
What WOULD we do without you?
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/10/2010 @ 1:34 amYou DO NOT have the right to say what you want, when you want, wherever you want.
Icy Texan (5cbf21) — 11/10/2010 @ 1:57 amThe obvious solution to this dilemna? Kick the guy off the team. Could anything be more blindingly, screamingly obvious? Why should she have to give up her position on the squad? If he’s such a good player that the team just can’t get along without him, that’s just too damn bad. That sounds to me more like a problem with the coaching staff.
If its known beyond any reasonable doubt that he assaulted her, then he’s not the kind of person that should be representing the school on a sports team or anything else.
ThePaganTemple (2fdb4c) — 11/10/2010 @ 5:44 amThe Pagan
kick him off… when?
Before he pled guilty to anything? Even after a grand jury initially refused to indict?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/10/2010 @ 5:49 amGood Morning-
To TPT- Close examination of the details and time line reveal that the player was suspended immediately from the football team, but after a grand jury declined to indict him a few months later he was allowed to join the basketball team. That was covered by Daleyrocks up around #50 to #100 or so.
To Chris Hooten- Thanks for asking. I believe the racoons are gone, but still working on the squirrels. I could really use one of those bucket machines like tree cutters, etc., use to reach all the spots on my house easier. So, if anyone has a spare, its on my Christmas list.
To AW at #289- Of course not, I just skimmed it. I’m sending P an invoice for my billable hours.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2010 @ 5:57 amEpwj’s asspulls and verbal diarrhea in #135 and 136 are a sight to behold.
Crissyhooten buys into the Bush stole 2004 election with Karl Rover and their super secret hit on the creator of the illegal super secret gwb communications network and fire does not melt steel and parrots Kimberlin and Freidman’s “election integrity” hooha mindlessly and exit polls are Teh Science so it is no wonder you wingnutterz are exit poll deniers and you suck.
JÐ (306f5d) — 11/10/2010 @ 6:05 amJD – Exit polls skew Democratic, even more so in years of high interest and turnout, which is why Democrats like them. They depend on voter memory and truthfulness, but also the demographics and performance of the people doing the performing the polling, elements which are far from scientific.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:34 amYou gotta admire MD’s perseverance to be on topic and pleasant no matter how screwed up the thread gets.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:43 amHere’s an article in Forbes which describes how national exit pollers attempted to modify their methods for prior inaccuracies in advance of the 2008 election. They recognized their deficiencies, Hootie doesn’t.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:50 amThank you, Dustin.
As I’ve stated before, my big “pet peeve” about troll wars is how the good stuff gets lost. For whatever reason, I had the time and inclination to try to make the main points here accessible to anybody, including someone like Pagan who sees it first time with 300 posts and doesn’t plan to read everyone of them (I don’t either when I have thie situation).
Besides, other folks did a lot of the important work of finding more info elsewhere that made the situation clearer, I think.
But, if you want a summary of the other stuff going on here, you’ll need to ask someone else, or get P to increase my pay for doing it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:53 amMD in Philly – There was definitely a need for a “noise filter” on this thread with all the incorrect assumptions of fact flying around.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/10/2010 @ 9:02 amIf he didn’t rape her, what else could he have been doing in a room with other guys where she couldn’t get out, was heard to be yelling “Stop,” & was found, naked & crying under the pool table, & he fekt he had to jump out the window, leaving his clothes behind, yelling vicious threats over anyone who told on him?
To Aaron Worthing who suggested this might be consensual & she was just lying about it: I pity the women in your life.
CommonSense (85aa94) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:24 amCommonsense
> If he didn’t rape her, what else could he have been doing
Where are you getting these alleged facts? And if you cite the SF Chron article, i will point out that this is only her word.
> To Aaron Worthing who suggested this might be consensual & she was just lying about it:
Given that I don’t know all the facts, I can’t be certain she was raped, no. Accusation doesn’t equal guilt, or else we wouldn’t bother to have messy thinks like trials. But throughout my piece i was very clear that it was very possible she was right, writing for instance:
> And I will not fault the girl for asserting she was raped in the face of a justice system unwilling to prosecute.
A failure to prosecute in this case could be based on a lack of evidence. And it could be based on a lack of concern for rape. But it is logically incorrect to assert that every accuser is automatically telling the truth, as the Duke Lacrosse case bears out. 88 duke professors branded the guilty based on nothing more than accusations, and then had to pretend they didn’t when the story was proven false. But what if we had a situation where they couldn’t PROVE she was lying, but she couldn’t prove her side of it. We do not go by the principle of guilty until proven innocent, period. That isn’t justice.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:40 am