The odd news thread

**SID** · 05-10-2010, 09:04 AM

Awww man, thats fucking sick.

**Queen Of Poetry** · 05-11-2010, 09:57 AM

NUH UHHHHHHHHHH!!! SOME HOODRAT IS PHOTO'D ON THE BEACH . . . . WEARING ONE OF THE MOST GHETTO BIKINI'S WE'VE EVER SEEN!!!

**PALEHORSE** · 05-11-2010, 10:00 AM

It is undeniable that in recent years there has been a steady militarization of our law enforcement and justice system. One could cite the increased use of the taser by police officers as a means of getting compliance, or the reckless use of SWAT teams and paramilitary raids to carry out search warrants. Legally this militarization is exemplified by the application anti-terrorist laws against private citizens for what would normally be civil infractions.

Take this recent example from Michigan. Daniel Allen, a 44 year old resident of Clinton Township, was involved in an altercation with his neighbor last October, allegedly over a football that landed in his yard. Words were exchanged, the situation became heated and Allen got into a fight with the neighbor. In the course of the fight, Allen bit the man in the finger and in the lip. Allen was originally charged with two counts of assault, but a third charge of bioterrorism was applied this week after it became known that Allen was HIV positive (and knew he was HIV positive at the time of the fight). Allen’s attorneys, supported by civil rights organizations, are calling the charges absurd and say that Michigan’s bioterrorism law was never meant to apply to altercations between individuals.

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

Michigan’s 1998 bioterrorism law was passed to combat terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing and a Michigan anthrax scare. The bill’s author, Democrat Gary Peters (now a U.S. Congressman) says that the law was originally crafted to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks and not persons with HIV-AIDS. HIV positive persons who knowingly attempt to transmit blood or fluid to others have previously been charged in Michigan (as in a 2007 case in which an infected man spit blood at police), but Allen’s case is the first time a charge of bioterrorism has been applied. If convicted of bioterrorism, Allen could face fifteen years in prison.

What can we take away from this? Regardless about how one feels about persons with HIV potentially spreading it to others on purpose (or about the machismo of a guy whose primary defense in a fight is to resort to biting), this case is important because it is a deliberate attempt to apply sloppily written, broad anti-terrorism measures against United States citizens in private conflicts that are more fittingly dealt with in civil court, or better yet, with an apology and a handshake. If Senator Lieberman’s citizenship-stripping bill ever passes and if the bioterrorism charges stick, Allen’s scrap with his neighbor could cost him serious prison time, his citizenship, get him labeled a terrorist, put him on the No Fly list and cause him to incur every other stigma that clings forever to those labeled a terrorist, all for a two-minute indiscretion.

Should we condone the actions of an HIV infected man biting his neighbor? Absolutely not; it is an especially despicable act if it was done on purpose with the intention of possibly spreading the virus. But to apply bioterrorism charges in this case is absurd and a flagrant abuse of the law, especially since any high school kid who has sat through health class knows that HIV is not spread through saliva. If terrorism charges can be invoked for something as simple as a man getting into a fight with his neighbor, where else can they be applied? What kind of precedent will it set? It gives us yet one more example of misapplication of anti-terror laws against U.S. citizens and a militarization of our justice system.

Sources

**Queen Of Poetry** · 05-11-2010, 10:02 AM

Anger over reality television 'virgin auction'

An Australian documentary maker has convinced several young people to appear in a reality television programme in which they auction their virginity to the highest bidder.

Published: 11:22AM BST 10 May 2010

One of the male virgins, identified only as Alex, said he had applied as a way of meeting someone Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Justin Sisley was forced to move the auction from the Australian state of Victoria to Nevada in America, after authorities said they would charge him with prostitution if the filming went ahead.
Sisley has gone public with the controversial project, claiming to have at least three willing participants.

Related Articles

Family First Senator Steve Fielding described the documentary as "absurd, ridiculous and disgusting"
The virgins will be paid $20,000 (pounds 12,000) each to take part in the auction and will also receive 90 per cent of their "sale price", according to a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.
The remainder of the money will go to the Nevada brothel which is hosting the event.
Initial bids will be placed online, but bidders will attend the final part of the auction, coming face to face with the people whose virginity they are bidding for.
One 21-year-old woman from Sydney, who used the name Veronica, said she had signed up for the auction to earn money and challenge traditional perceptions about sex.
"Technically I'm selling my virginity for money, technically that would be classified as prostitution, but it's not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I'm not going to be a prostitute," she told the paper.
"I don't think I'll regret it."
One of the male virgins, identified only as Alex, said he had applied as a way of meeting someone.
Sisley admitted his plan was unpopular with the parents of the people involved. "They hate me," he said.
An Australian documentary maker has convinced several young people to appear in a reality television programme in which they auction their virginity to the highest bidder.

**check two** · 05-11-2010, 12:14 PM

This woman should have her baby taken away from her when it's born:

-Police: Drunk, pregnant woman crashes into home

A pregnant woman was charged with driving under the influence after her car hurtled nine feet into a Cherry Hill home Monday night, police said.

Carina Madison was heading north on Woodcrest Road, approaching Burnt Mill Road, and ran a red light about 9:30 p.m., according to Cherry Hill Police Lt. Bill Kushina.

Madison, 24, of Cherry Hill, drove over the lawn and the garden bed of a split-level house in the 1600 block of Burnt Mill Road, Kushina said. Her 2005 Chevy crashed between the garage and the living room wall.

Virginia Rosario said she had fallen asleep on the couch while watching TV in the living room. What woke her up was the TV set falling to the floor.

"I didn't even hear the crash," she said. "I didn't even see the hole in the house. I just saw the TV and thought, How did that happen?"

Her sister, Olmiraida Medina, came running downstairs, shouting, "Are you OK?"

The first reply was from the driver, who was on the other side of the living room wall in the garage. She said she was fine.

Madison, who refused medical attention, was also charged with driving with a suspended license, Kushina said.

"I think it's the first I can recall of an apparently intoxicated pregnant female," Kushina said. "There are many reasons why she shouldn't have been on the road."

A building inspector looked over the home and the residents remained there overnight.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/br...into_home.html

**Queen Of Poetry** · 05-11-2010, 12:33 PM

I agree check!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell!

**Queen Of Poetry** · 05-11-2010, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by PALEHORSE

It is undeniable that in recent years there has been a steady militarization of our law enforcement and justice system. One could cite the increased use of the taser by police officers as a means of getting compliance, or the reckless use of SWAT teams and paramilitary raids to carry out search warrants. Legally this militarization is exemplified by the application anti-terrorist laws against private citizens for what would normally be civil infractions.

Take this recent example from Michigan. Daniel Allen, a 44 year old resident of Clinton Township, was involved in an altercation with his neighbor last October, allegedly over a football that landed in his yard. Words were exchanged, the situation became heated and Allen got into a fight with the neighbor. In the course of the fight, Allen bit the man in the finger and in the lip. Allen was originally charged with two counts of assault, but a third charge of bioterrorism was applied this week after it became known that Allen was HIV positive (and knew he was HIV positive at the time of the fight). Allen’s attorneys, supported by civil rights organizations, are calling the charges absurd and say that Michigan’s bioterrorism law was never meant to apply to altercations between individuals.

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

Michigan’s 1998 bioterrorism law was passed to combat terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing and a Michigan anthrax scare. The bill’s author, Democrat Gary Peters (now a U.S. Congressman) says that the law was originally crafted to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks and not persons with HIV-AIDS. HIV positive persons who knowingly attempt to transmit blood or fluid to others have previously been charged in Michigan (as in a 2007 case in which an infected man spit blood at police), but Allen’s case is the first time a charge of bioterrorism has been applied. If convicted of bioterrorism, Allen could face fifteen years in prison.

What can we take away from this? Regardless about how one feels about persons with HIV potentially spreading it to others on purpose (or about the machismo of a guy whose primary defense in a fight is to resort to biting), this case is important because it is a deliberate attempt to apply sloppily written, broad anti-terrorism measures against United States citizens in private conflicts that are more fittingly dealt with in civil court, or better yet, with an apology and a handshake. If Senator Lieberman’s citizenship-stripping bill ever passes and if the bioterrorism charges stick, Allen’s scrap with his neighbor could cost him serious prison time, his citizenship, get him labeled a terrorist, put him on the No Fly list and cause him to incur every other stigma that clings forever to those labeled a terrorist, all for a two-minute indiscretion.

Should we condone the actions of an HIV infected man biting his neighbor? Absolutely not; it is an especially despicable act if it was done on purpose with the intention of possibly spreading the virus. But to apply bioterrorism charges in this case is absurd and a flagrant abuse of the law, especially since any high school kid who has sat through health class knows that HIV is not spread through saliva. If terrorism charges can be invoked for something as simple as a man getting into a fight with his neighbor, where else can they be applied? What kind of precedent will it set? It gives us yet one more example of misapplication of anti-terror laws against U.S. citizens and a militarization of our justice system.

Sources

Bioterrorism? I don't know if that is the word I would use. I mean he needs to be punished but I don't know if that is the word I would use.

**RzaRectum** · 05-11-2010, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Queen Of Poetry

13 YEAR OLD CHILD BRIDE DIES OF INTERNAL INJURIES . . . SUSTAINED DURING PASSIONATE NIGHT WITH HER 25 YEAR OLD HUSBAND!!! (DETAILS)

May 09, 2010. MediaTakeOut.com just received some very SAD news. A 13-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal injuries last week, just four days after she wed a 25 year old man.

The girl, named Ilham Mahdi al Assi, died last Friday in a hospital in Yemen's Hajja province. She was married the previous Monday in a traditional arranged marriage known as a 'swap marriage', in which the brother of the bride also married the sister of the groom.

According to a United Nations report, the girl was EXTREMELY petite and underdeveloped. And during her wedding night, she sustained SEVERE internal injuries from intercourse. And those injuries later cost her her life.

Her husband is not expected to be charged with any crimes.

He literally fucked the living shit out of her..

He knows he went too far during and after.

**Queen Of Poetry** · 05-11-2010, 09:21 PM

Yeah some sick shit. How can u do that to a child? I mean regardless of ur culture and beliefs, she was a child.

**RzaRectum** · 05-11-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by PALEHORSE

It is undeniable that in recent years there has been a steady militarization of our law enforcement and justice system. One could cite the increased use of the taser by police officers as a means of getting compliance, or the reckless use of SWAT teams and paramilitary raids to carry out search warrants. Legally this militarization is exemplified by the application anti-terrorist laws against private citizens for what would normally be civil infractions.

Take this recent example from Michigan. Daniel Allen, a 44 year old resident of Clinton Township, was involved in an altercation with his neighbor last October, allegedly over a football that landed in his yard. Words were exchanged, the situation became heated and Allen got into a fight with the neighbor. In the course of the fight, Allen bit the man in the finger and in the lip. Allen was originally charged with two counts of assault, but a third charge of bioterrorism was applied this week after it became known that Allen was HIV positive (and knew he was HIV positive at the time of the fight). Allen’s attorneys, supported by civil rights organizations, are calling the charges absurd and say that Michigan’s bioterrorism law was never meant to apply to altercations between individuals.

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

Michigan’s 1998 bioterrorism law was passed to combat terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing and a Michigan anthrax scare. The bill’s author, Democrat Gary Peters (now a U.S. Congressman) says that the law was originally crafted to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks and not persons with HIV-AIDS. HIV positive persons who knowingly attempt to transmit blood or fluid to others have previously been charged in Michigan (as in a 2007 case in which an infected man spit blood at police), but Allen’s case is the first time a charge of bioterrorism has been applied. If convicted of bioterrorism, Allen could face fifteen years in prison.

What can we take away from this? Regardless about how one feels about persons with HIV potentially spreading it to others on purpose (or about the machismo of a guy whose primary defense in a fight is to resort to biting), this case is important because it is a deliberate attempt to apply sloppily written, broad anti-terrorism measures against United States citizens in private conflicts that are more fittingly dealt with in civil court, or better yet, with an apology and a handshake. If Senator Lieberman’s citizenship-stripping bill ever passes and if the bioterrorism charges stick, Allen’s scrap with his neighbor could cost him serious prison time, his citizenship, get him labeled a terrorist, put him on the No Fly list and cause him to incur every other stigma that clings forever to those labeled a terrorist, all for a two-minute indiscretion.

Should we condone the actions of an HIV infected man biting his neighbor? Absolutely not; it is an especially despicable act if it was done on purpose with the intention of possibly spreading the virus. But to apply bioterrorism charges in this case is absurd and a flagrant abuse of the law, especially since any high school kid who has sat through health class knows that HIV is not spread through saliva. If terrorism charges can be invoked for something as simple as a man getting into a fight with his neighbor, where else can they be applied? What kind of precedent will it set? It gives us yet one more example of misapplication of anti-terror laws against U.S. citizens and a militarization of our justice system.

Sources

If convicted, this shit will set the precedent for terrorism laws to apply to any civilian for normal civil matters. THIS is an example of how people have been losing their rights of the years.

That is why it is important to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS and DEFEND THEM

Originally Posted by Queen Of Poetry

Anger over reality television 'virgin auction'

An Australian documentary maker has convinced several young people to appear in a reality television programme in which they auction their virginity to the highest bidder.

Published: 11:22AM BST 10 May 2010

One of the male virgins, identified only as Alex, said he had applied as a way of meeting someone Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Justin Sisley was forced to move the auction from the Australian state of Victoria to Nevada in America, after authorities said they would charge him with prostitution if the filming went ahead.
Sisley has gone public with the controversial project, claiming to have at least three willing participants.

Related Articles

Family First Senator Steve Fielding described the documentary as "absurd, ridiculous and disgusting"
The virgins will be paid $20,000 (pounds 12,000) each to take part in the auction and will also receive 90 per cent of their "sale price", according to a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.
The remainder of the money will go to the Nevada brothel which is hosting the event.
Initial bids will be placed online, but bidders will attend the final part of the auction, coming face to face with the people whose virginity they are bidding for.
One 21-year-old woman from Sydney, who used the name Veronica, said she had signed up for the auction to earn money and challenge traditional perceptions about sex.
"Technically I'm selling my virginity for money, technically that would be classified as prostitution, but it's not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I'm not going to be a prostitute," she told the paper.
"I don't think I'll regret it."
One of the male virgins, identified only as Alex, said he had applied as a way of meeting someone.
Sisley admitted his plan was unpopular with the parents of the people involved. "They hate me," he said.
An Australian documentary maker has convinced several young people to appear in a reality television programme in which they auction their virginity to the highest bidder.

She will realize the truth after it is too late. Somebody get her a dictionary.

**check two** · 09-20-2010, 04:31 PM

--Man sexually assaults a dinosaur

One man put a new twist on bestiality Sunday afternoon when he sexually assaulted a dinosaur - a large, plastic one - in a Chester County park, according to police.

The unidentified man followed two teen girls - 13 and 14 - into Pomeroy Park in Avondale around 4:30 p.m. and first exposed his penis to them before he began "simulating a sexual act with a large plastic dinosaur in the park," according to a state police news release.

The man, who is described as Hispanic, between 20 and 30 years old and around 5-foot-6 with a goatee, fled the scene on his bicycle, according to police.

A state police spokesman did not return calls for comment Monday. It was not immediately clear from the release if the dinosaur was a permanent fixture in a play area of the park.

Anyone with information is urged to call state police at 610-268-2022.