Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem you don't seem to understand is that I have placed myself in compromising situations, and when a crime was perpetrated against me, I knew it was partially my fault. Hence, if I walk into a gay bar, and I commence to get completely inebriated to the point where I'm blacked out, I know for certain that there's a risk that a gay man might try to take advantage of me. Hence, if I wake up to find out I'm sodomized, it was partially my fault. Furthermore, since I was in a black out, and I have no recollection, how do I know that despite being 100% heterosexual and loving busty Latin brunettes the likes of Monica Bellucchi and Penelope Cruz that I didn't actually consent? Now toss into this mix the fact that I know the gay man because we work together at the club, and it's easy to see that this isn't a black and white slam dunk case and how both the perpetrator and defendant have mitigating circumstances that support both their arguments. That's why there's a huge difference between the situation I explained and some stranger breaking into a house, forcing a strange woman to have sex, and then there being a lot of physical evidence and potential witness to the event. This is why our system, no matter how flawed, recognized that despite your belief system, things aren't always conveniently black and white, and that's why we have varying degrees of punishment for rape, murder, and other serious crimes.
If you don't think that there are parts of this country where you don't belong, you're quite naive. I'm here to tell you as a white male with light skin, eyes, and hair that there are places I have lived and didn't belong, and the black community that dominated the city frequently let me know it. My home and car were frequently vandalized. I used to hang out with the Hispanics because the blacks just wouldn't accept me, so I frequently saw a lone Mexican passed out drunk in a bar have his pockets picked by some black patron in the black establishment. I went there because it was two doors down from me, the Mexican went there for reasons unknown to me, but the bottom line is that we both stuck out, we weren't part of the group, and if we got drunk, somebody would always rob us.
While volunteering for the neighborhood Catholic church and Habitat for Humanity, I've had lone black kids, and sometimes groups of blacks chant, "This is a black playground, and that's our pizza! Get out white people," simply because a delivery van dropped off pizza for my work group, which happens to be all white people. The black kids wanted free pizza. I've had adult blacks make snide comments while working on some volunteer project, "We don't need whitey helping us!" Spare me the naive thought that everybody is free to go wherever they want. Not to crack on blacks, because I largely despise all social groups, if I go to a white affluent neighborhood in my 1974 Ford F-250 4x4 with 35" tires and factory rust and booming 390 4V with dual exhaust, the cops are going to investigate it. If I date a girl from that part of town, the parents aren't going to like it. We've all sorts of unwritten gender, race, age, economic etc rules in this country and people do follow them.
If I'm in that same black neighborhood where gunfire was a daily event, crime was all over, and drugs very prolific and I saw you getting robbed, I know if I help you, I might get stabbed or shot too, so rather than look, I simply move on to a safer area.
For those of you that have never lived in dangerous environments, you simply don't know, and your simplistic boy scout logic doesn't apply. A crime isn't a crime punishable by death and or life imprisonment. Crimes are very complex, have mitigating circumstances, and we've got a system in place to sort them out. While it's not a perfect system, and I don't like it myself, it's still much better than the frontier justice of the naive where the culpability is always 100% with the perpetrator.
Define "consent" I've had women tell me no, and when I stopped they got upset because no meant yes. Then there's women that get drunk, are vindictive, and when they realize the consequences of their actions, infidelities, and the like, they cry rape. There are cases where women of a different race cry rape when it was really consensual sex.
I'm not sorry that I live in an inconvenient reality and I have a hard time believing every story as black and white because I've learned that people don't always tell the truth.
How anybody could read my post #82 and somehow misinterpret that as championing rape and crime is beyond me. Moreover, as I've stated previously, I've noticed some of your posts throughout this board, and you seem reasonable, so I would also hope that you could understand my tack.
Cheers and thanks for reading,
bolillo
You lost me at...
Quote:
The problem you don't seem to understand is that I have placed myself in compromising situations, and when a crime was perpetrated against me, I knew it was partially my fault. Hence, if I walk into a gay bar, and I commence to get completely inebriated to the point where I'm blacked out, I know for certain that there's a risk that a gay man might try to take advantage of me. Hence, if I wake up to find out I'm sodomized, it was partially my fault.
I refuse to engage with someone that can't even understand the underpinnings of law and order.
I refuse to engage with someone that can't even understand the underpinnings of law and order.
Did I lose you or do you refuse to read the reality of life?
I'll make this as simple as I can explain it considering the complexities of crime:
Person A and Person B go out on a business related lunch date. They both get heavily intoxicated and engage in consensual sex. Person B suffers remorse after sobering up and dealing with an enraged spouse due to the infidelity, which causes Person B to file a rape complaint. During the courtroom proceedings, it's apparent that Person B doesn't have a very strong case and there's doubt about the validity, but it's enough to convince a jury, so Person A is given 1 year in prison for rape.
Citizen X kicked in the door of an apartment in order to rape a woman he's seen through a window. Citizen X brutally and repeatedly rapes an innocent victim. Witnesses/police catch Citizen X in the act. At trail, Citizen X is given 25 years to life, death penalty, and other forms of extreme and severe punishment.
That's why there are different sentences for crimes. It's due to mitigating circumstances because not every crime has the flawed black and white thinking that you're using. Rather than pointing the finger at me and stating that I don't understand the law, I'd suggest reading somebody's post thoroughly rather than disregarding it or misinterpreting it because it doesn't suit your opinion.
Mitigating
Verb
Make less severe, serious, or painful: "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world".
Lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake).
Last edited by bolillo_loco; 03-26-2013 at 09:32 AM..
Reason: No Rhodes scholar here
Did I lose you or do you refuse to read the reality of life?
Person A and Person B go out on a business related lunch date. They both get heavily intoxicated and engage in consensual sex. Person B suffers remorse after sobering up and dealing with an enraged spouse due to the infidelity, which causes Person B to file a rape complaint. During the courtroom proceedings, it's apparent that Person B doesn't have a very strong case and there's doubt about the validity, but it's enough to convince a jury, so Person A is given 1 year in prison for rape.
Citizen X kicked in the door of an apartment in order to rape a woman he's seen through a window. Citizen X brutally and repeatedly rapes an innocent victim. Witnesses/police catch Citizen X in the act. At trail, Citizen X is given 25 years to life.
That's why there are different sentences for crimes. It's due to mitigating circumstances because not everything has the flawed black and white thinking that you're using. Rather than pointing the finger at me and stating that I don't understand the law, I feel that it's you that's missed the boat.
You are so confused and all over the place I don't even know where to start. Your first example isn't rape. It is remorse mixed with a woman who commits a crime all by herself in the form of a false accusation. The woman should be jailed for such a heinous accusation along with punitive damages.
You don't even give remotely like scenarios. Like I said you put more emphasis on the gun, violence leading up to the rape or other ancillary crimes than the rape itself. Of course using a gun and beating the woman savagely is going to up the sentence, it is an aggravating factor.
To think that rape itself is a 1 year baseline sentence and that using a gun/beating the woman up adds +24 years in your mind again reaffirms the societal acceptance of petty theft like sentences for non-gun using, non-brutality violent rapist.
One can only hope you are never on a jury, this would be Rwanda with people like you.
You are so confused and all over the place I don't even know where to start. Your first example isn't rape. It is remorse mixed with a woman who commits a crime all by herself in the form of a false accusation. The woman should be jailed for such a heinous accusation along with punitive damages.
You don't even give remotely like scenarios. Like I said you put more emphasis on the gun, violence leading up to the rape or other ancillary crimes than the rape itself. Of course using a gun and beating the woman savagely is going to up the sentence, it is an aggravating factor.
To think that rape itself is a 1 year baseline sentence and that using a gun/beating the woman up adds +24 years in your mind again reaffirms the societal acceptance of petty theft like sentences for non-gun using, non-brutality violent rapist.
One can only hope you are never on a jury, this would be Rwanda with people like you.
I don't even know how to address you anymore. People are falsely accused of rape and or other crimes and, convicted, punished, and jailed. Rape is not the black and white crime you keep stating it is. A rape is a rape is a rape is rather flawed logic. That's why there are a lot of mitigating circumstances that determine how severe the punishment is.
I've no clue where you're coming up with me focusing on guns. I never brought up gun related crime and focused on the punishment of gun crimes. I did state that I lived in a neighborhood that had gunfire, and I talked about people getting shot, but I focused on rape, and in each of my scenarios, guns were never included, which leads me to believe that you're not reading my posts. I never once addressed the second crime you're writing about, so you seem to have jumped to conclusions, have an obvious pro gun bias, and are taking it out on me. I will never talk bad about guns. I do not believe in any gun laws. I feel that they are all unconstitutional and violate citizen's rights.
While you may not find my scenarios in my two earlier posts unlikely (#82 and #90), those are personal experiences from my life that happened to me, a personal friend, or a roommate that I was living with at the time.
The bottom line, for the third time, crimes of violence, theft, and personal injury are not all black and white. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances, people are lying, and there are varying degrees of severity which causes different sentences to be handed down. Why is this so hard to believe?
You don't think the kids got one year was enough of punishment? How do you know that the girl making the accusation wasn't a lying little tart that half the school had gone through? There could have been a lot of questionable evidence at the trail that caused the judge, jury, and attorneys to agree that one year was harsh enough. Furthermore, maybe she was Jessica, the white prom queen and virgin, and maybe he was 100% innocent, and the perpetrators didn't get enough punishment. The bottom line is that you don't know! Furthermore, it's often hard to tell who's lying in rape cases due to the gray nature of date/drunk rape. Many rape cases are prosecuted by the district attorney's office despite the fact that the case is very questionable. Innocent victims are often the men who never even raped the woman, but she appears believable just because she's cute, white, young, and a wide variety of reasons.
That's why rape cases that don't involve two strangers and obvious forced rape with signs of struggle and other physical evidence often get diminished punishment.
This country would be Rwanda with people like me? Considering you've no clue what I'm like, don't you think that's a bit harsh?
Last edited by bolillo_loco; 03-26-2013 at 10:08 AM..
Reason: No Rhodes scholar here
I don't even know how to address you anymore. People are falsely accused of rape and or other crimes and, convicted, punished, and jailed. Rape is not the black and white crime you keep stating it is. A rape is a rape is a rape is rather flawed logic. That's why there are a lot of mitigating circumstances that determine how severe the punishment is.
I've no clue where you're coming up with me focusing on guns. I never brought up gun related crime and focused on the punishment of gun crimes. I did state that I lived in a neighborhood that had gunfire, and I talked about people getting shot, but I focused on rape, and in each of my scenarios, guns were never included, which leads me to believe that you're not reading my posts. I never once addressed the second crime you're writing about, so you seem to have jumped to conclusions, have an obvious pro gun bias, and are taking it out on me. I will never talk bad about guns. I do not believe in any gun laws. I feel that they are all unconstitutional and violate citizen's rights.
While you may not find my scenarios in my two earlier posts unlikely (#82 and #90), those are personal experiences from my life that happened to me, a personal friend, or a roommate that I was living with at the time.
The bottom line, for the third time, crimes of violence, theft, and personal injury are not all black and white. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances, people are lying, and there are varying degrees of severity which causes different sentences to be handed down. Why is this so hard to believe?
You don't think the kids got one year was enough of punishment? How do you know that the girl making the accusation wasn't a lying little tart that half the school had gone through? There could have been a lot of questionable evidence at the trail that caused the judge, jury, and attorneys to agree that one year was harsh enough. Furthermore, maybe she was Jessica, the white prom queen and virgin, and maybe he was 100% innocent, and the perpetrators didn't get enough punishment. The bottom line is that you don't know! Furthermore, it's often hard to tell who's lying in rape cases due to the gray nature of date/drunk rape. Many rape cases are prosecuted by the district attorney's office despite the fact that the case is very questionable. Innocent victims are often the men who never even raped the woman, but she appears believable just because she's cute, white, young, and a wide variety of reasons.
That's why rape cases that don't involve two strangers and obvious forced rape with signs of struggle and other physical evidence often get diminished punishment.
This country would be Rwanda with people like me? Considering you've no clue what I'm like, don't you think that's a bit harsh?
Rape is literally a black and white crime. If you penetrate someone sexually against their will/without consent you have committed rape. Not rape-light, or heavy-rape, or kinda-rape.
There is a reason most places have mandatory minimum sentences, because people like you who make excuses and rationalize reasons victims are bring rape on themselves would give rapist a slap on the wrist given your comfortable with the circumstances of the rape. We all know the only reason these guys (steubenville kids) skated was under the technicality of juvenile court, and it was a separate argument if it was right to even have a juvenile court and/or try them in court.
That fine if you want to use your own experience to draw on, but you still didn't give a real comparison. You give a scenario of rape and a scenario of false accusation, so of course I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
We all know women accuse men of rape when no rape happen, are you saying the court got it wrong and wrongly accused the Steubenville kids? If so, you out of line without having any of the direct evidence and simply guessing.
Lastly, I don't need to know you inside and out. You are excusing perps and putting blame on victims for being raped, then citing situations when women falsely claim rape as your justification. That is pretty brutal to do to the real rape victims, and for you do conclude the girl wasn't actually raped when the court of law found them guilty is quite the assumption.
If we essentially didn't enforce rape or decriminalized to your levels, like Rwanda (exaggerating for illustration) we would have a higher level of rape and lower rates of women reporting it. Clearly something you are OK with?
Rape is literally a black and white crime. If you penetrate someone sexually against their will/without consent you have committed rape. Not rape-light, or heavy-rape, or kinda-rape.
There is a reason most places have mandatory minimum sentences, because people like you who make excuses and rationalize reasons victims are bring rape on themselves would give rapist a slap on the wrist given your comfortable with the circumstances of the rape. We all know the only reason these guys (steubenville kids) skated was under the technicality of juvenile court, and it was a separate argument if it was right to even have a juvenile court and/or try them in court.
That fine if you want to use your own experience to draw on, but you still didn't give a real comparison. You give a scenario of rape and a scenario of false accusation, so of course I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
We all know women accuse men of rape when no rape happen, are you saying the court got it wrong and wrongly accused the Steubenville kids? If so, you out of line without having any of the direct evidence and simply guessing.
Lastly, I don't need to know you inside and out. You are excusing perps and putting blame on victims for being raped, then citing situations when women falsely claim rape as your justification. That is pretty brutal to do to the real rape victims, and for you do conclude the girl wasn't actually raped when the court of law found them guilty is quite the assumption.
If we essentially didn't enforce rape or decriminalized to your levels, like Rwanda (exaggerating for illustration) we would have a higher level of rape and lower rates of women reporting it. Clearly something you are OK with?
Ok since you don't understand. I worked in a gay club. I sometimes went there on my night off because I could take a girlfriend there and she could drink cheaper due to my employee discount. I am not homosexual or bisexual. My factory closed, and I was also a club DJ, so I expanded into black and gay clubs. One night, I drifted into the gay club where I worked. Another man was there that I worked and got along with. He was gay, and he had a thing for me. I blacked out. Did I consent? I have no clue. Am I gay? No I'm not. I cannot think of anything more repulsive than having sex with a man, but I also know that when I'm blacked out drunk, anything could have happened, so should I ruin that man's life and cry rape? Furthermore, I hold some culpability there because I drank to the point of blacking/passing out.
Only a person blinded by black and white thinking could continue to defend a rape is a rape is a rape. This clearly isn't the case. Moreover, you don't seem to understand that rape is often cried when none happened, and truly innocent people's lives are ruined by false rape accusations.
Just because a court of law finds something doesn't mean it's true. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, yet a lot of the nation believes he committed the crime. I personally don't know if O.J. did or didn't because I'm not privy to all the facts. Only the truly naive would even believe that the courts are infallible.
You've continuously made assumptions about my points, and tossed in whatever agenda you seem to have with these two cases, when I have never defended either case. I have no opinion on either of the two cases you've presented to us other than you have no clue what actually happened, neither do I, and the lion's share of people here at city dataj don't know either. Since we were not witnesses to the crime, we have no way of knowing what really happened, and that these cases are clearly not black and white. What you have against these cases I can only imagine. There seems to be a pro gun logic, but it's really hard to tell.
Since you seem to feel the need to continuously call me a rape supporter. I've been raped. I do not support rape. I do however realize that not all rapes are really rapes. Many rapes go to trial when they either didn't happen or there isn't enough evidence to support them. That's the problem with living in a police state controlled by yellow journalism filled with minions that only seem to care about pop culture.
Since there are varying degrees of severity with rape and crime in general, we have a range of sentencing guidelines. That has been my point throughout this entire topic, and you do not know what happened, so how can you pass judgement so easily?
Don't begin to assume you know what my life experiences have been and what my opinions are. Your Rwanda argument, assumptions and other snide comments throughout your posts are completely uncalled for.
Last edited by bolillo_loco; 03-26-2013 at 10:41 AM..
Reason: No Rhodes scholar here
Ok since you don't understand. I worked in a gay club. I sometimes went there on my night off because I could take a girlfriend there and she could drink cheaper due to my employee discount. I am not homosexual or bisexual. My factory closed, and I was also a club DJ, so I expanded into black and gay clubs. One night, I drifted into the gay club where I worked. Another man was there that I worked and got along with. He was gay, and he had a thing for me. I blacked out. Did I consent? I have no clue. Am I gay? No I'm not. I cannot think of anything more repulsive than having sex with a man, but I also know that when I'm blacked out drunk, anything could have happened, so should I ruin that man's life and cry rape? Furthermore, I hold some culpability there because I drank to the point of blacking/passing out.
Only a person blinded by black and white thinking could continue to defend a rape is a rape is a rape. This clearly isn't the case. Moreover, you don't seem to understand that rape is often cried when none happened, and truly innocent people's lives are ruined by false rape accusations.
Just because a court of law finds something doesn't mean it's true. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, yet a lot of the nation believes he committed the crime. I personally don't know if O.J. did or didn't because I'm not privy to all the facts. Only the truly naive would even believe that the courts are infallible.
You've continuously made assumptions about my points, and tossed in whatever agenda you seem to have with these two cases, when I have never defended either case. I have no opinion on either of the two cases you've presented to us other than you have no clue what actually happened, neither do I, and the lion's share of people here at city dataj don't know either. Since we were not witnesses to the crime, we have no way of knowing what really happened, and that these cases are clearly not black and white. What you have against these cases I can only imagine. There seems to be a pro gun logic, but it's really hard to tell.
Since you seem to feel the need to continuously call me a rape supporter. I've been raped. I do not support rape. I do however realize that not all rapes are really rapes. Many rapes go to trial when they either didn't happen or there isn't enough evidence to support them. That's the problem with living in a police state controlled by yellow journalism filled with minions that only seem to care about pop culture.
Since there are varying degrees of severity with rape and crime in general, we have a range of sentencing guidelines. That has been my point throughout this entire topic, and you do not know what happened, so how can you pass judgement so easily?
Don't begin to assume you know what my life experiences have been and what my opinions are. Your Rwanda argument, assumptions and other snide comments throughout your posts are completely uncalled for.
Well the thread was about two specific, high profile cases. Why you ventured to a specific thread only to interject random, anecdotal experiences about rape in general.
So since you insist on using your single experience as the barometer for how you interpret rape, then lets dance.
This is how it works, if there was no consent, you were too drunk to consent or you said no then you were raped if you were sodomized in a gay club.
If you said yes to be sodomized then you were not raped, you were engaging in consenting sex.
So how that works? You either meet, do not meet the criteria for rape or there is not enough evidence. If you are not a homosexual and never had homosexual relations, you went to a rape clinic to be examinedand you have no recollection of consent then you have quite a bit of evidence to let a prosecutor decide if he can move forward on the defendant.
The prosecutor can also speak with the defendant to get information that may shed light on the event too. Or a bartender, co-worker, etc. If you all signs point to you being raped, then why wouldn't you push for some answers and complete due diligence? (Maybe it was done, I'm asking you.)
If you were in a gay club, and presumably the vast majority of the people were homosexual there how do you know it was that man? You are simply assuming he had a crush on you and because of that he would be the prime suspect? (That is nuts)
Could some late night seedy individual frequenting the club have raped you? Since almost everyone there is homosexual by common sense standards, any person there could have had the motive to do it.
In short, yes you should have ruined whoever was responsible for raping you if everything is accurately portrayed by you. You should have went right to the cops, and hospital to get evidence and preserve it, get any information from the establishment you could while memory was fresh and maybe CCTV footage.
Why wasn't this done? They can do sleuth work and investigate without charging the man and "ruining his life" or anyone else's life until they feel they have sufficient evidence.
I'd say they are both on about the same level. They are both victims, and they probably both put themselves in that situation. Of course it would depend on the specifics of the cases.
You can't put yourself in that position from the standpoint of the law. Committing no crime and being the victim of one isn't a reason to excuse or lessen a crime.
Now, from a statistics standpoint; you are right. It doesn't excuse the crime or lessen it, but right or wrong you have a higher chance to be impacted by a crime being drunk or in a seedy part of town.
Well the thread was about two specific, high profile cases. Why you ventured to a specific thread only to interject random, anecdotal experiences about rape in general.
Not only have I pointed out the glaring errors in your debate, but so have many others. We do not know all the specifics about the cases you've presented us, and therefore we cannot pass judgement on why the sentences varied. Hence, we can only make suppositions on why the sentences were so different. The entire premise behind my personal experiences and those of people I have known is to shed light on how each case is unique and why they're so different based on the complexity of each situation. The reason for the great detail I've put forth through my personal stories was to combat your black and white thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derosterreich
So since you insist on using your single experience as the barometer for how you interpret rape, then lets dance.
I've used more than one personal experience to show you that crime isn't black and white and often times the "victims" have some varying degree of culpability, and that's why not every perpetrator gets the same punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derosterreich
If you were in a gay club, and presumably the vast majority of the people were homosexual there how do you know it was that man? You are simply assuming he had a crush on you and because of that he would be the prime suspect? (That is nuts)
Since you again decided to engage in a topic you have no first hand knowledge of, let me once again explain how the real world works. The gay man in question was my coworker. I'd personally known the man for more than a year. I worked with him two - three nights per week during that time, and he continuously made it known that he liked me, was hot for me, and he made sexual advances both verbal and physical, so it wasn't an assumption that he liked me.
In closing, why our society is so violent is caused by many reasons, and stiff sentencing does nothing to stem the flow of crime. Earlier you've stated that because of people like me, that's why we have mandatory minimums. That's quite an assumption to make on somebody you don't even know. Furthermore, even if I were inclined to take a light punishment stance on violent crime, that's not why we have mandatory minimums. America is a jailer nation. We lock people up willy nilly for just about anything. I've seen people in my county get 30 - 90 days for an overdue library book over valued at 60 dollars.
We've been propagandized that violent crime is everywhere when it's in fact gone down per capita every decade since the 1960s. Tough on crime sells and is a fast track for reelection, and that is why we have mandatory minimums for so many crimes, most of which aren't even violent. Most Americans that are incarcerated, have a criminal record, and the like are there because of societal issues rather than out right crimes. With each new crime bill, there's more money for police, jails, and courts. These systems have to justify their existence, and most of the townships they serve have lost their tax base, so fining and jailing are nothing but cash register justice, and that's why many so many things have been criminalized and so many cases make it to court that don't even have a leg to stand on in anything other than a police state.
I'm not even sure if this is a debatable topic. You seem to have cherry picked two different cases, juxtaposed them, and then told us why we have so much crime, so I'm no longer sure whether to just read this thread as a blog or debate it.
Last edited by bolillo_loco; 03-27-2013 at 06:49 AM..
Reason: No Rhodes scholar here
Ok since you don't understand. I worked in a gay club. I sometimes went there on my night off because I could take a girlfriend there and she could drink cheaper due to my employee discount. I am not homosexual or bisexual. My factory closed, and I was also a club DJ, so I expanded into black and gay clubs. One night, I drifted into the gay club where I worked. Another man was there that I worked and got along with. He was gay, and he had a thing for me. I blacked out. Did I consent? I have no clue.
Perhaps you do not fully understand what constitutes as rape or consent?
There are many misconceptions about rape & I agree that some people do lie about it for various reasons. However, from what you have described on this thread about your experience at the gay bar... You may not personally feel that you were raped, you may personally feel you were to blame for it, but by definition it constitutes as rape if it met the criteria of:
A. There was penetration.
B. You were too intoxicated to consent according to law. Being black out drunk is definitely too intoxicated to give consent.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-28-2013 at 06:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
