The naked judge of Detroit. Meet Wayne County 3rd Circuit Court Judge Wade McCree, who Weinerized himself in a naked picture to his female bailiff. Listen to the interview. He’s proud of himself. Watch the way he acts. This is what the collapse of civilization looks like.
View Comments (48)
Okay that cut between butt and back that is something that is sexy to me... okay sorry I am a single woman give me a break. Now I am not all up in arms on this as he didn't lie about it like the other fool that did this and it seems the woman doesn't have a problem with it (but the husband does) so it is a private matter. Detroit is nasty so whatevs...
Noooo, really?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/28/detroit-judge-my-shirtless-photo-was-big-error-1224757823/?test=latestnews
As if we needed more evidence he's a major Richard (no pun), the last line fta sums up his whole sorry non-apology apology.
"I am embarrassed and truly sorry for my actions, which have hurt and caused great pain to my family."
"No shame to my game."
well just which statement are we supposed to believe your horny? bah. you're only apologizing cuz you got caught you despicable excuse for a man. Fie, Fie and feh to you, you disgusting idjit!
btw Ghost, what does FTA mean?
Sorry, from the article. I mix up work, personal and interwebz shorthand all the time. I'll try to do better, I swear.
ok. i thought it might mean eff the african. african being zerobama. aka scoamf
So when you go into his courtroom do they introduce him as the Honorable Judge Wienie Wagger?
Which brings to mind a question of his ability to use good judgement on sexual assault cases, sexual molestation cases and generally anything to do with a sex crime..My money would be this guy wondering how he could get away with the same crime...
On other question, wonder how many times he wasn't wearing pants in court? This guy needs to be a non judicial custodian at a fast food joint, where he can peter tweeter himself silly.
http://www.jamesconeyisland.com/
Considering how far one has scroll up to reply to our rather extensive subject line, I thought I'd attempt a shorter one.
I am not at all opposed to reasoning together, and DRB and Alien, and others, though DRB and Alien and I seem to be the most active here, apparently are not opposed to it either.
Every person is responsible for her/his own actions. And every person is accountable for his/her own actions. Having been a Biblical scholar, I have through that education, an understanding of Scripture that could possibly benefit us in this discussion, if for no other reason than to be able to point to materials that better reply to the subjects that may be brought up in this line.
I am by no means an expert.
word of man type do exist in the Bible, but I think, that none of them have any reference to differences in the genders. Also, in every case (as far as I've read) they can be attributable to scribal error which would include marginal commentary inclusions in the main text.
If he's a Democrat I'll pretend to be outraged, otherwise I could care less about what public officials do on their own time. As long as he's not disrobing while on the bench, meh
I appreciate the thumbs down, I really do, but let's not be naive, if our countries founding fathers had IPhones there would probably be a ton of half naked pics of them to go around. Many of them had money, power, land, large hair. The only reason we don't know about all the crazy stuff they were into is because they didn't have the internet.
So the guy sent a few pics to a married woman, who hasn't, and further more, who cares? Also, the woman didn't file a sexual harassment suit against him, the only reason this came out is because her husband seen them, which means (given it's 2012 not 1920) she was probably into him. If she wasn't she would have had a multimillion dollar lawsuit in this day and age.
So "collapse of civilization," nah, just a dog being a dog.
As a Libertarian, I could care less about what others do in their bedrooms. I care about their public policy and application of that policy in the public arena. As the saying goes (paraphrasing): 'I don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.'
http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html
you're making unfounded, almost completely disprovable, and un-educated assertions about the founding fathers. In my opinion, you would do well to educated yourself on the lives of the founding fathers. One may extrapolate from the evidences available that, for the most part, the founders of this nation were morally superior to what passes for leadership these days.
But they still had their fun when nobody was looking. Don't get me wrong, they were some remarkable men, but they were also human.
"But they still had their fun when nobody was looking." and you know this how? Or is it mere supposition? Because if you have evidence of immoral behavior amongst them (and I don't mean old ben franklin, whose reputation i deem to be spit worthy) then trot it on out.
as for being human, that's not relevant really, i don't think, because many humans are able to comport themselves with dignity and righteousness, and by righteous I mean a right way of living, not perfection, and not necessarily a Christian standard of righteousness.
http://www.anusha.com/slaves.htm
I guess most of what I've heard was about Thomas Jefferson, and even that is in question, depending on who you listen to.
I thought DNA proved TJ did father several children with one of his slaves.
Also let us not forget about the "morally superior" Alexander Hamilton who was blackmailed by the husband of his mistress (who he continued to see for years if I remember correctly). Or about the "morally superior" presidential campaigns of Adams/Jefferson and John Quincy Adams/Jackson.
That being said, they were people. That should not negate the courage it took to declare independence. When you get a group of people together, any group of people (politicians, military, religious folk, IHTM comment section), a few of them are going to be dogs, it happens.
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account
"...This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children."
In 1791, Hamilton became involved in an affair with Maria Reynolds that badly damaged his reputation.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING
I don't consider the following 2 to be Founding Fathers. When I utilize the Term it is more along the lines of the Signers of the Declaration, with a slight nod towards the framers of the Constitution.
John Quincy Adams/Jackson the former, an accused pimp, the latter an accused adulterer. Neither of which was true.
First: "was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings’s children.”... 'some' is the key word there.
Second, Hamilton was a founding father although did not sign the DOI. By your measure Washington was not a founding father either.
Third: THEY WERE ALMOST ALL SLAVE OWNERS. I didn't want to bring that up because I'm well aware the original draft of the DOI made all men equal, including slaves, and that if slavery was abolished all the colonies would not have been on board and hence independence would have never been won, and that one goal (or hope) was that slavery would gradually be abolished since many industries depended on slaves at the time and many didn't want it to happen all at once. I get all that. But you bring up "morally superior," I don't think owning another person is morally superior.
Again, I don't think that makes America a bad place or anyone is owed anything, or other crap a liberal might throw, but 'morally superior' I would say is a poor choice of words. They were people, just like people today, just like people before them, just like people in the future, people.
So I still say, if you gave them IPhones, someone (probably Franklin) is takin a picture of his junk and sending it to a woman.
Personally, seems to me that the Bible is pretty rough on women. I expect it is more the Word of Man type entries. Even when its passages concede that men's lust and weakness are the root of some problems, it seems that women are the ones responsible for mitigating their behavior
sorry, referring to previous posts by you, me and jp ...putting it all together...Thinking in a continuous flow over here.
all of a sudden women are so inferior they can’t even think for themselves and can’t be responsible for their own choices/actions.
drb, um, i don't understand how you got that from what I've posted.
well, robert, thank you for proving my point. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were each responsible for their own choices. Then later on down the time line of things (you know after mankind got all arrogant and full of themselves), all of a sudden women are so inferior they can't even think for themselves and can't be responsible for their own choices/actions. Rather inconsistant, no? And by evaluating the many posts from many different women right here on this site, I would say the women can indeed do there own thinking and be responsible for thier own choices/actions. Would you not? ;)
DRB, let's put it into a wider contextual reading:
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Forgive the brevity of my references. Had I the time, and the space, and a more fitting forum, I should think I'd provide a fuller exegesis.
As for the Levitical codes, these were directed first and foremost towards those who'd become priests, and women aren't allowed to be priests, again, according to the Bible.
Lev. 15 provides a fine example of words directed towards both sexes simply through the use of the masculine term for person.
According to the biblical record, it was Eve who first sinned. Does this mean that Adam, in following her example and falling to her temptings was not responsible? Of course not. In fact, Rom. 5:18-20 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
DRB, In a Patriarchal society men were the leaders and women were subject by and large to the exact same laws. There are laws specifically relevant to women: “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
Robert, this again puts the blame on the man and not the woman as if she were incapable of thinking and controlling herself. And again, BS and again sounds like it came from man and not God.
@ JP... Yes but read it carefully, that quote is blaming men and their homosexual acts as being responsible for making women behave in a similar fashion. It doesn't find any fault with the women nor does it really say that two women together is wrong. Just that men making certain choices forces women to make certain choices as if a woman is incapable of thinking and controlling herself. Which in my opinion is BS. And to me sounds like it came from man and not God.
Alien: that's old covenant law. and you cannot have one part of the law and not the rest. Regardless, we're not bound by it, but we can see the mind of God in it, especially when you consider what Paul, moved along by the Holy Spirit writes in the new covenant era:
Rom. 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'
Therefore, I believe it is wrong to give them any special standing, any consideration for teaching that perversion as something acceptable/tolerable/desirable.
DRB, In a Patriarchal society men were the leaders and women were subject by and large to the exact same laws. There are laws specifically relevant to women: "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." Common sense tells us that this would apply towards women coming on to their husbands during that time as well.
1 Jn. 4:1 NIV:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Rev. 2:18
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. THIS verse is meant specifically for the Book Of Revelations. But it has been cited to refer to all the bible.
Deut. 4:2 Moses writes: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
I Cor. 7:12 NIV
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
Here is a site that some may find relevant to concerns about what is of man and what is of God in the Scriptures.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html
I cannot vouch for it, but on the surface it seems quite logical in its approach.
DRB: Romans 1:26 mentions the lesbians.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."
That's the excuse I always use for not being bothered by lesbians, when I'm in a smartass mood.
@alien...indeed it would. especially when you consider that throughout the majority of the bible it uses the word man for human kind (like most of the quotes in robert's post) as opposed to gender. Yet that one quote: ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads' is very gender specific. Seems a bit off doesn't it? like someone else is doing the talking? In addition, I find it very interesting that that quote claims it is a "detestable" act for 2 men to lie together yetno where in the bible does it say that it is "detestable" for two women to lie together. HMMM, contradictory? No? Now, then is it possible that that particular quote came from man? If so, why? Could it be because to many men the idea of two women being together is a turn on, yet two men together...not so much? Just askin'
@drb that is a fascinating idea. It'd be interesting to annotate/highlight the Bible using those rules
Ok Robert, I have a question for you. Doesn't it also say somewhere in the bible, that man's word will find its way into the bible, but it's ok because you will alway be able to tell what came from man and what came from God because man words will contradict itself and Gods words will alway be consistent? (or something like that)
@RobertW Leviticus, i'm guessing? Do you believe that gay men should be put to death for doing their thing?
actually, you're right.
I've always approached it from the perspective of one living under the new covenant.
Actually there's something quite explicit...
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
and there was something else too, and i thank you for allowing me to bring it up:
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
"if slavery were a moral issue it would have been condemned in the Bible"
I would argue it at least falls under Thou Shalt Not Steal
‘some’ is the key word there. meaning she laid with other men NOT in the Jefferson bloodline.
if slavery were a moral issue it would have been condemned in the Bible.
"... if our countries" (sic) "founding fathers had IPhones there would probably be a ton of half naked pics of them to go around."
"So I still say, if you gave them IPhones, someone (probably Franklin) is takin a picture of his junk and sending it to a woman."
herein you contradict yourself.
I would take issue with just a mere nod to the Constitution. As i understand it, most historians consider those involved with both Documents, and the Revolution itself. Some also gather in an array of other satellite figures involved in the broader discourse of the day (tip a glass for Samuel Adams, ye scalawags! Or not.. agitators are much fun though)
@RobertW i'd take issue with even a fiercely enthusiastic nod towards the Constitution, because...well, that'd just be weird. It deserves a firm handshake and manly clap around the shoulder!
I only cited the one guy, Samuel Adams, cuz I'm lazy and he was walking riot. Massachusetts was bananas(!) back then
I said slight, not mere, but semantics aside, you've only cited 2 of the founding fathers to refute my claim "for the most part." Also, your citation is years LATER.
actually, i do know about this book, it generated a lot of controversy, and while it's true Jefferson did own slaves it is not likely that he kept sally as a mistress, at least according to recent dna testing that indicates it was actually Thomas' brother who fathered the children.
I can't think of where it is though, the report. In fact, I MAY have read about it in History Channel magazine.
For me it's not so much the naked pic as the stupidity of the judge during the interview. This is what happens when civilization starts to crumble: nincompoops get appointed to judgeships because their fathers are famous judges and because of their race. Clearly this man should not be a judge, or probably even a member of the bar. He's not just stupid, he acts borderline insane. Another article today reminded me of the same kind of useless individual our crumbling Western Civlization is elevating to high positions: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/meet_the_tarnished_bureaucrat_who_is_running_our_negotiations_with_iran.html
Hehe, NoScrict, I didn't see the video.
My point was, sure he's an idiot, I'm sure if someone took the time to look into his record that would clearly be seen. I just think we need to get used to the fact we're going to be seeing a politicians junk once in a while, given the internet and smartphones and the fact all politicians (a judge is a politician in my opinion) are idiots, it's just going to happen.
Should we kick them out, maybe, depends on their public record I think. This guy being a dog does not affect me, but what he does from the bench does. So if I don't like him and his record, like I said I'll pretend to be outraged to replace him.
LOL large hair
*applause*
You have an entire website's worth of content right there, with the Founder's iPhones
Just what Detroit needs, a judge that thinks with his dick.
Well, they had the mayor already....so I guess they are just getting all branches of government.
can someone please just turn the handle and flush detroit down the shitter already?
So, this is where Chryslers and Dodges are "imported" from to America! ROFLMAO. :-)
He's a judge, part of his job is wacking his gavel
Groan.
groin ?