1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The College Rape Club

Dante19 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 5:04 PM
I would not suggest execution, but certainly prison for life or at the very least castration. I've moved on to the best of my ability. She can't completely, which is typical in these situations. The worst for her, however, was what it did to her first husband, who was a magnificent man that I got the chance to know in his very last years. But my wife and I were unable to have children since the knifing shredded her uterus. Stuff like this happens all the time, but its doubtful Ann Coulter would ever publicly admit it.
In response to:

The College Rape Club

Dante19 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 5:00 PM
She was in the hospital for several days and that's when the policy report was made. 2 years ago we tried to get the case re-opened, but the LA policy department said that the chance of doing so 29 years later, when so many other criminal investigations had a much better chance of conviction, was essentially zero. They, of course, were correct. So, we walked away. Just like the rapists. Only my wife has the physical and emotional scars as a reminder. But your question indicates that you must consider my wife the likely perpetrator of a false accusation. (Good thing I won't show her your post.)
In response to:

The College Rape Club

Dante19 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 4:09 PM
Are we talking about "legitmate rape" here or rapes that are legitimately factual? Is it legitimate to accuse, but not prove a rape? And if the burden of proof falls on the victim, an actual true, honest-to-good "rapee" mind you, is that proof subject to the some 48 hour statue of limitations notwithstanding the victim's apparent state of mind immediately after the "alleged event" when the likelihood of acute emotional trauma could be the the very highest? Sometimes the scars do last, like the one I see on my wife's belly every day when she was not just brutally raped 30 years ago before I had met her by two men, who forced her then fiancee to watch as they beat him senseless afterwards, but afterward also then stabbed in the stomach for good measure. The police never could find these two, but given their demographic profile in East Venice Beach, they are most likely dead today or in prison. The fiancee is dead, too, having developed severe agoraphobia, congestive heart failure and Parkinson's shortly after the assault. Their marriage didn't last, nor the tubal pregnancy that resulted from the rape. Of course, my wife could have made all that up for some stupid reason.
In response to:

Against Obama, But for What?

Dante19 Wrote: Nov 04, 2014 3:49 PM
Furthermore, if you dislike what I just wrote, and most of you surely will, you certainly must them be one of those a-holes I was talking about who can't see the middle road through the ignorant frame of reference to which you travel. Being a student of demography and reflex response, the words you write will paint you as far likelier to be much closer to the grave to boot and thankfully not leaving an attractive trail for the next generation to follow. When the GOP narrowly wins tonight it will force the country, and every damn politician, into realizing that they won't ever get all they want, but if they actually try sometimes - to COMPROMISE most of the time -- they'll help get what we all need. Otherwise, we can just wait for 2016 when Hillary is elected and the Senate goes back to the Democrats, with the Independent Senators in actual control and the House even more Republican but still rudderless, and more Hispanics populating the damn Blue Wall while the rest of you angry while men are saying good night for good. We I were younger, too.
In response to:

Against Obama, But for What?

Dante19 Wrote: Nov 04, 2014 3:35 PM
Pat was correct in saying that a divided country gets what it deserves, a divided Congress and government. But as far as my 58 years shows me, that's better than the extremely inane progressive agenda or the equally inappropriate, self-serving and myopic extremism demonstrated by all side of the social and tea-pee-pee conservatives you insult the GOP brand. I have faith that enough of the young and naive liberals will migrate to moderate liberalism or conservatism as the age. Thanks naturally fortunate for the country. On the other hand the already well-aged, mostly white and male, holier-than-thou social conservatives and the truly hypocritical "keep you g*d-d@^n GOVT hands off my Medicare!" libertarians simply need to just die off, and sooner rather than later to help ameliorate the sad partisan condition this country is in. Thank God for the Independent movement which doesn't have to pander to all these extremists a-holes!
In response to:

Our Judicial Dictatorship

Dante19 Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 4:31 PM
Isn't more than just a little bit funny how when the judicial ruling goes against a conservative POV or desire, especially an emotional one like gay rights, that all the staunch Right and columnists like good old Pat decry the "unelected dictatorial" overreach in our legal system. But when the Supreme Court rules that a corporation is a person for the purposes applying 1st amendment rights to all campaign contributions, there is narry sound out of the same group. You hate it when your side loses in court, convinced that the justices and judges were 100% wrong, but can't do anything but gloat when the courts rule in your favor. There is a word for that, let me see, oh yeah, hypocrisy. Lovely word, isn't it. And so applicable to both the Left and the Right. By the way, those manic progressives act exactly the same way. That is no surprise. Well, on the subject of gay rights, your side, Pat's side, is losing BOTH in the court of public opinion and the legal courts and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Those of you that are actual gay-haters are going to have a tougher time of it here, but that's self-inflicted. And the idiots that demand impeachment are also going to gastronomically upset when that will never happen, just as much as the liberals have heartburn over gun right protections, campaign contributions and eminent domain rulings that they can't abide with. What is done is done. Thank God we actually have a judicial system and not a 100% states rights conflagration of basic liberties that cross state lines as easily as the wind. My recommendation would be to spend more of you time in retirement focusing on college football and less on hating the fact that very smart judges, an equal # of whom vote Republican all the time, all agree that equal protection under the law ACROSS the land applies just as much to gays as it does to you. But if you can't do that, then suffer the slings of your own homophobic and hateful arrows. It will be what you surely deserve.
Well, did have business doing so or else they wouldn't have done so. That is why we have a legal system of courts to ensure that laws made, however well-intended, don't violate state and federal law. Your side and your kind simply can't accept that fact or losing on this issue in every court in the land or now in the court of public opinion. Again, that's a choice you make and whatever constipation it creates in your heart and soul is self-inflicted. My advice would be to move-on and accept what you can't change. But I doubt you will.
70% of blacks is a much smaller % still of the older, white, socially conservative crowd to which I spoke.
For about 7 years or so I have mused on the faint, dying last breadth arguments from your usual run-of-the-mill homophobe, holier-than-thou religious zealot and die-hard social conservative who simply couldn’t accept that society as whole always is in constant dynamic change, some of which becomes constitutionally catalytic, yet always ends favorably for the majority. I was very frequently "informed" that my social liberalism was a cancer, that I was morally repugnant (PS: I am not gay) and that there would NEVER be universal gay marriage in the US, or if so it would be “over my dead body”! None of which is true or came true. I’ve heard every possible argument against gay marriage repeated in so many feeble ways, mostly penned by grossly sophomoric attempts at fashioned logic dishonored by seriously bad writing style and grammar. But it was easy to see how none of those contentions would never mount to any change in the destiny of gay rights circa the last and next several years. But it was just as easy to foretell the obvious that, just like old dogs can’t be taught any new tricks, angry, old and mostly white male gay-bashing, stuck-in-the-mud Puritans can’t be saved from themselves. And TH is their only last bastion of mudslinging, hand-wringing and cry-babying. Oh, well, too bad for you and all of them.
For about 7 years or so I have mused on the faint, dying last breadth arguments from your usual run-of-the-mill homophobe, holier-than-thou religious zealot and die-hard social conservative who simply couldn’t accept that society as whole always is in constant dynamic change, some of which becomes constitutionally catalytic, yet always ends favorably for the majority. I was very frequently told that my social liberalism was a cancer, that I was morally repugnant (PS: I am not gay) and that there would NEVER be universal gay marriage in the US, or if so it would be “over my dead body”!. I’ve heard every argument against gay marriage repeated in so many feeble ways, mostly penned by grossly sophomoric attempts at fashioned logic dishonored by seriously bad writing style and grammar and even worse logic. But it was easy to see how none of those arguments would ever mount to any change in the destiny of gay rights circa the last and next several years. But it was just as easy to foretell the obvious that, just like old dogs can’t be taught any new tricks, angry, old and mostly white male gay-bashing, stuck-in-the-mud Puritans can’t be saved from themselves. Oh, well, too bad for you.
1 - 10 Next