“The problem is that people want to have casual sex with no accountability.”
I thought the problem was a woman falsely accusing a man of rape? And how is consensual sex any different than going into business with someone who eventually accuses you of some crime? Again, you’re very close to saying, “If you didn’t want to be raped, you shouldn’t have walked down the dark alley in a mini-skirt”. Casual sex isn’t immoral and it isn’t a crime. Falsely accusing a person is.
It is not a question of blame.  Your post is irrelevant because you are fighting something that cannot be won re: a principle of justice. There is no justice in the law. The law is not designed to be just. It is designed to be applied relatively equally, and in that sense alone, fairly.
Consequently, your argument misses the most elementary fact:Â survival in the real world relies on common sense, not on principles.
Just re-read what you wrote above. It’s the girl’s fault. She should go to jail. Blah…blah…blah. And there should be no evil either!!!
Sorry, but it is the guy’s fault. He is an idiot. He has violated a very basic common sense rule: don’t bang the floozy in the back of the dorm room, unless you are prepared to live with the possibilities. You see, unless he lives on another planet…the boy should be able to envision this exact set of circumstances in his mind. What, surprise, oh my god, she lied…wow, never saw that coming. Get real. The boy is guilty as charged: of stupidity.
Solution: keep it zipped up. Or do you think he was really thinking about marrying said young sweetheart? LMAO. I think not.
So it is real simple…justice system 1…idiot boy 0.
Not so hard to predict and entirely undeserving of sympathy. You see, he didn’t have to bang the floozy did he? He wasn’t compelled to do so by anyone was he? He didn’t forfeit something material to his life by not banging her did he?
In point of fact…he and he alone without anyone else had the power to avoid the whole thing, didn’t he?
Therefore, he needs no sympathy.
SUD
I’ve agreed with SUD before, but you’re off your trolley on this one. Falsely accusing someone of anything is a big no-no, especially when those false accusations could result in decades in jail. Had the boy video-taped the whole thing, and had proof, wouldn’t she be in hot water? I should think so! This sounds a lot like the proverbial “If you didn’t want to be raped, you shoulnd’t have been wearing those clothes!” I thought we moved past that way of thinking.
If I start a business with some woman, and she falsely accuses me of tax evasion later on, is that just par for the course? Your solution would be don’t go into business with people? :?
@Imperious:
Hope you get stuffed with all the traditional goodies including boiled potatoes, potato pancakes, potato cream soup, sauerbraten , schnitzel ,apple skivers, and apple strudel along with alot of Spaten beer. A special thanks to the people on the other side of the aisle of political orientation including Falk, CC, Mary, and sometimes Janus you people for whatever reason are allways good foils for a political debate. Of course many other members who share a more profound view of the world are equally blessed including: B. Andersson (game master), Rune Blade, Marine, Chengora, Desertfish and Dennis Jenson ( DJenson)who i recently had the pleasure to meet at Gen Con LA.
Mega Dittos ;)
So you hate poor Mexicans that work here, but don’t hate Americans on welfare? Both are a net drain on resources. One group works hard, the other does not.
The point people are trying to get you to see is that fleeing to a country for a better life is not worthy of hatred. Should we hate the Jews that fled Germany and tried to get into America? Or the Irish that fled from the Great Potato Famine? Would you do any different if you were living in a slum in Mexico? Or if you were a woman who’d been raped by Mexican policia? Or would you try to “tough” it out because- damnit- it would just be WRONG to sneak into America!
Someone doth protest too much.
Is the steroid an immune suppresent?
All roads seem to lead to Iraq:
Katina hurt Bush, but he can recover from damage like that. Iraq just keeps dragging him down. He’ll be lame-duck unless the situation improves.
The lowest it’s ever been. I thought 38% was rock bottom for Bush, but apparently, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The startling number is only 42% think Bush is honest and ethical.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10013594/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
Any predictions on the absolute nadir for Bush?
Just seems like your typical “Moderate because I’m really interested in maintaining the status quo, but I don’t like Roe vs Wade” type nominees, which beats being a true conservative nominee in my book.
I’m for her because a) I want Roe vs Wade overturned and b) He’s pro-gay rights and c) He beats a conservative activist.
Alito’s very hard to pin down. He seemed Scalia-like, at first glance, but looking at his rulings, he’s all over the place. He was in favor of spousal notification for abortion, but also…
"In 1995, Alito joined a 3-0 ruling that made it easier for poor women who were victims of rape and incest to obtain a free abortion paid for with federal funds. Federal law generally forbids paying for abortions, except when the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape and incest.
…Five years ago, Alito joined a 3-0 ruling that struck down New Jersey’s ban on a type of late-term abortion that critics call “partial-birth” abortion. In a concurring opinion, Alito said the law was clear." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002596692_alitoabortion01.html
Also, “Ruled the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn in a 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus.”
I can’t see a pro-lifer ever ruling in favor of any funding for abortions and CERTAINLY NOT in favor of “partial-birth” abortions. I think Alito may be rare in that he can actually set aside personal bias and rule on the basis of law alone.
@Rune:
I hope this is a logical error and not something you actually believe. Were Timothy McVeigh and Terri Nichols trying to “shape a world view based off of a Muslim Fascist policy”? Was the UnaBomber? Was the KKK? If you’re Muslim you’re a terrorist but if you’re Christian, you’re what? A crusader?Â
I expected more from a “master debator”, but maybe that’s a typo too. Maybe you’re really referring to yourself as a "masturbator"Â
Mary, if that’s the best you can do, why don’t you just chuck it in? You are reducing yourself to personal attacks. I am ashamed of you and you give us all a black eye when you do that :-D.Â
Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, Timothy McVeigh, Terri Nichols, and the Unabomber were all terrorists including the KKK, but those are the only ones you can come up with. I don’t even recall any other white terrorists in this country. However, over 95% of the world’s terrorists are muslim from Palestine to Indonesia and even in Europe ie France. I just call it where I see it.Â
Just keeping you honest Mary. You can’t win against me.
Rune Blade
The Masterbator
Here’s the problem: you defined terrorism as Muslim oriented and got your ass handed to you. Muslims have carried out two attacks on the U.S., both at the World Trade Center. Christian Fundamentalists have been bombing abortion clinics for the last 20 years.
"One source reported in late 1996, that there has been “over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
That’s just one group. The IRA has been engaged in terrorism for decades. Ever hear of a certain Pan Am flight that exploded over Lockerbye?
“The term terrorism is largely synonymous with “political violence,” and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall outside the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as representing the bounds of conventional warfare.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Note the lack of the word “Muslim”. Know why Muslims are doing a lot of terrorism lately? Cause we fucking invaded a Muslim nation and lied to the world about it! Gee, might that piss some people off, people who’s relatives we killed in our “shock and awe” mad scramble to rid Iraq of WMD’s?
Look, Chengora politely corrects you. The rest of us don’t have as much patience. Even as a troll you fail. CYA. Lrn2Post.
The kind of shit you post gives us all a black eye. If we allow that, what do we say if some nutjob comes on posting “DIE, Marines, DIE!” everytime we lose a guy over in Iraq?
“Terrorism = Killing and destroying individuals or property in an effort to shape a world view based off of a Muslim Fascist policy. Muslim Fascism is Hitler with a headscarf…”
I hope this is a logical error and not something you actually believe. Were Timothy McVeigh and Terri Nichols trying to “shape a world view based off of a Muslim Fascist policy”? Was the UnaBomber? Was the KKK? If you’re Muslim you’re a terrorist but if you’re Christian, you’re what? A crusader? :roll:
I expected more from a “master debator”, but maybe that’s a typo too. Maybe you’re really referring to yourself as a “masturbator” :-P
"So yes, I say with much glee……“BURN FRANCE BURN”…and I will smile when I do it, especiallly if it makes the libs angry.
Rune Blade"
"I think that if history serves me correctly that even France was more productive as a country while under Nazi occupation. Hmmmm…
Rune Blade"
This is much worse than what Falk got a warning about. Do we really need this type of trolling in the forum?
@Rune:
Mary, once again your ingnorance is unparralleled.
For one, comparing what happened to Katrina with muslims burning cities to the ground is a stretch.
Sorry, I stopped reading at that point. Exactly which city has been “burned to the ground”?
CTA is the California Teacher’s Association. I don’t know of any other teacher unions state-wide.
The French probably thought the same thing after Katrina. “Five days to get food and water to people? Just what you would expect from Bush and company”.
Good thing Bush appointed “Fashion God” Michael “Brownie” Brown to run FEMA, eh?
I’m kind of on the front lines of this battle, being a 5th grade teacher in California and all. Here’s my take…
Prop 74: This won’t do anything to improve education as we simply don’t have a surplus of teachers in this state. Ok, so you dismiss a tenured teacher with two bad evaluations. Who do you replace them with? Long-term subs? There aren’t any credentialed teachers to take up the slack. There are bad teachers out there, but there are far more bad parents. No one seems to be talking about them because it doesn’t get you any votes. This also does nothing to address the problem of vindictive principals issuing bad evaluations to get rid of people they don’t like. I’ve been on the receiving end of THAT problem. It’s more common than anyone outside the profession realizes. Lastly, it doesn’t take 5 years to figure out if someone shouldn’t be teaching. I can observe a teacher for 20 minutes and get a pretty good idea whether they’re cut out for the job or not. 5 years just sounds good to a public weary of low-test scores, and too lazy to address the sociological problems (e.g., 1/3 of my class learned English as a second language).
Oh, and don’t get me started on merit pay. There’s a reason Beverly Hills scores in the top 5% and Inglewood scores in the bottom 10% and it doesn’t have to do with teachers. In our district, the single biggest factor for student success is the education level of the parents, which I have zero control over. Also, I’m lucky to have 1/2 my kids left at the end of the year. How can I be held responsible for the success (or lack of) of students I haven’t even had for the whole year?
Prop 75: Ok, Swartz raises $30 million+ and he’s worried about labor unions’ political influence? The guy is a shameless fundraiser, and guess where the money’s coming from? Not from the unions, that’s for sure. Prop 75 was initiated to reduce union political clout. The special interests that give to Shwartz don’t give a damn about “paycheck protection”. If you don’t want your money going to political causes, you simply tell CTA that. You could have your $85 a month spent on a church for all they care. The rule is simply that each member contributes about a grand a year. 99% choose to let CTA lobby with it as they please. But anyone can opt out and spend their union dues on something else.
No they fail to realize there was MORE THAN one reason for the war.
WMD’s were a necessary and sufficient reason for Congress to approve the Use of Force resolution. Everything else was window dressing. Necessary, because Congress never would have given bush the power to invade a country that had no weapons to attack us with. Sufficient, because after 9/11, people were terrified of the idea of another nation with A) the desire to attack us B) links to Al Qeuda, and C) had stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons and were close to getting nuclear weapons. Remember Bush talking about not waiting for “the smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud”? If Iraq had A,B, and C, then we had to take them out before they could attack us.
That was the theory, at least ;)
It is posturing.
If it has been used so infrequently it just shows how desperate the Dems are.
There was no lying or misleading.
Why the heck did most of them vote for the war. They all had the same intel. If you are criticizing the CIA methods or how it was run in the 90’s, that is one thing, but to suggest info was made up by the Pres or that he delibrately lied, well that is way off in kookville or MoveOn Land.
Not everything is a conspiracy theory.
So it was all just an honest mistake?
“The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.”
…
“Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency’s approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9890829/
Once again, I’m ashamed to be an American.