No. How the hell did you come to that conclusion?
Printable View
A contract consists of a few parts: offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case there was a breach of that contract, and considering the consideration that was offered and accepted was sex, it is tantamount to stealing sex which is called rape. Does that work for you?
Not at all. It would just be theft. Even if consent is based on a premise, you can't just retract consent after the fact. If I could do that, I would be on top of the world right now.
He stole from her, he should pay. He should not be charged for rape. That's ridiculous.
Until and unless he does pay her (which I agree he should be forced to do,) he has stolen from her and what he has stolen is sex; stealing sex is rape. I think my logic works out just fine. Now, it isn't the "normal" forcible rape that calls for extreme punishment, but it's rape none-the-less.
To the second part of my post, they should be fired for cause, but I'd bet a reassignment is all that follows.
It was consensual sex. If I offered to pay you to punch you in the face, you agreed, I punched you in the face and didn't pay, should I be charged with assault?Quote:
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
Only if you lie.
Yes, you should be until or unless you paid. The four walls of a contract are what constitute "consensual;" once outside of those walls, you are simply stealing whatever was agreed upon. You obviously get into questions of "clean hands" and what can and can't be contracted for, but in a purely abstract manner, violation of terms in this case is tantamount to rape in my eyes or battery in your hypothetical.
A big assumption to think these people were acting professionally ... Their role-model-leader is no professional, either.
In fact, the job is above his paygrade.
But if you're gonna claim the girl was raped, you should understand the laws of the country in which it happened ... YES ?
Therefore relevant.
And don't forget the huge assumption being made ... No where have I read that services had been rendered.
The more I think about it the more symbolic this incident is... we live in a world full of whores for the US government, none of whom are going to end up getting paid what was promised (that includes you, assigned NSA staffer to RPF).
Again irrelevant.
Whether there was a contract dispute/rape is irrelevant.
Whether Obama is a good President is irrelevant.
This was a massive Breach of Security. (first that it happened, and second that they allowed it to happen)
If they were "set up",, that is even worse. (Security should not ALLOW itself to be set up)
Highly unprofessional behavior. The whole bunch should be fired outright.
YES, fire them ... Because my sense of moral values is always superior, and I'm not afraid to use force to ensure that others comply to my system of values LOL
No,
Fire them because they are total failures,, and a public embarrassment.
My "Moral Values" have been questionable at times. I have done "security" work before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGxpRik0OIQ
Failure is failure.
Obama's form of polish will not fix this.Quote:
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff gave Obama an earful on U.S. expansionist monetary policy that is sending a flood of funds into developing nations, forcing up currencies and hurting and other rich nations' competitiveness.
"The way these countries, the most developed ones, especially in the euro region in the last year, have reacted to the crisis with monetary expansion has produced a monetary tsunami," she said, as Obama listened.
"Obviously we have to take measures to defend ourselves. Note the word I chose - 'defend,' not 'protect,'" added Rousseff, whose government's actions to curb imports have been decried as protectionism by some in the region.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83D0E220120415
Colombian law is irrelevant to whethe I would be rape or not. If Colombian law, for example, said its not rape if the man uses a condom, it would still be rape if the sex is not consensual, regardless of hat the law says.
In the case of not paying a whore after sleeping with her, I'd say it's theft or breach of contract, but not rape.
The US government is so evil and corrupt that what those jokers did can be likened to a fart in a tornado (excuse the cliché). If anything, I'm happy that the vaunted Secret Service was taken down a notch by this. It shows that they're not hiring quite the caliber of people they thought, but a bunch of undisciplined goofballs who can't even keep it in their pants while on assignment.
Of course, I'm not happy if any prostitutes were cheated, but it looks like those responsible are going to get in some shit for it and possibly lose their jobs. Good.
Wake up, people !!!
Quote:
akat says: April 15, 2012 at 9:45 am
Patrick and other Infowar reporters. This Colombian hooker scandal is ‘interesting’ if mindless gossip news. If you check Reuters, there is some real news coming out of this conference that might be much more important to cover.
First, Colombia is getting in line with most of the other latin OAS members in demanding that Cuba be included in future meetings. Cuba is a big part of this regions economy and these states are demanding that the want to be controllers from the U.S. are including Cuba in these discussions. Second, Argentina is demanding back their Falkland Island, which were looted from them by the imperialist British Empire, which is now trying to loot most of the middle east. Africa, and the U.S. Now this is news much more important, in the long run, than not wanting to pay the tab for your prostitute roomate. Focus guys!!!!!!!!
Say it ain't so !!!Quote:
truecolours says: April 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm
The very fact that the corrupt NWO media is pouring gasoline all over this faux story is proof that it’s phoney. I’m leaning toward the theory that the Obama team has set up the SS in order to justify a new palace guard. I’ve also noticed that they all have their “comments” feature turned off. The professional propagandists want 100% control of this story! CBS is chief among them.
You could be liable to criminal prosecution for fraud if you enter into a contract with no intent on fulfilling your obligations and deliberately misleading the other party.
First of all,,
I don't believe Obama is that smart. Perhaps a move by his handlers, but that changes NOTHING.
They don't work for Obama or any other president. Their job is to provide security. (not to party on the public dime)
These guys job is security,, and they can't even provide for their own security. :eek:
Fire the bunch of losers.