1 - 10 Next
What's scary is that all laws of this kind have been unequally enforced. The most common form of rape in the U.S. for at least 30 years has been the woman at a party grabbing a guy who is drunk or stoned. Can't consent. But DAs don't care if it's a man, because it's never been convenient to prosecute. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was common to hear women "just have to tell someone" of the exciting time they had, and how they'd committed this or that crime. We guys had to put up with that. It's the same system that created the mess of sexual harassment at the Federal level being rampant against men since the early 1990s and ignored. Legal officers would tell victims "just ignore it" despite the perpetrators being female bosses and other employees. Imagine if the roles had been reversed. The idea of laws that treat the sexes differently must end. Pretty much anything domestic is that way. It's common for police and DA's to ignore when a woman is beating people in a home, but then to notice when someone fights back. Moral iniquity by our CJ system. The 14 Amendment seems to be completely ignored today, except by judges creating new rights for homosexuals from the equal rights clause.
re: jwllliams The number of born again Christians in the U.S. is about 35%. That is hardly a majority in anything. The Congress and President constantly attack Christians in legislation, from the 2009 H.R. 1913 that would have made pedophiles protected classes under civil rights law to the executive order this week that seeks to remove all accountability from homosexuals for not taking "no" for an answer. Media has attacked Christians for at least 25 years. Employers frequently won't hire Christians because their work is too good and because having one on the staff makes them "feel uncomfortable" despite the latter being ruled by the Supreme Court as no basis for legal actions. Despite the usual slander (which is another attack by our media), in 30 years of work, I've never actually seen a slacker be a born-again Christian, but I do know they sometimes make employers "uncomfortable" because they won't compromise on moral issues like "don't steal" and "don't lie". When you have the government, the media, and a considerable chunk of the public constantly attacking and denigrating Christians, then it's reasonable to consider Christians an oppressed minority. I'm sorry that you don't see that, but that ignoring of ambient conditions is typical of liberals, who generally see what they want, rather than seeing what is.
The school was breaking the common law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that students don't leave their First Amendment rights behind when they enter the school building. Further, they have ruled that student prayer and other Christian activities are legal as long as the students are the ones who do it. Essentially, the school was engaging in a Soviet or Nazi style Socialist censoring of the student's right to free speech and religious speech, even to the blacking out of words that might offend the Socialists of the state. Hardly what Jefferson intended in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, is it?
In response to:

Bowe Bergdahl, Just Deserts

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jun 04, 2014 11:10 PM
Bergdahl's parents look like classic 1960s rejects. Even to the man having a pony tail. The Slovik story reminded me of J. Davis commuting the sentences of deserting soldiers, saying "the poorest use of a soldier is to shoot him." Eisenhower could have learned something from that. Slovik should have been reassigned to second echelon duties like so many others were. The fact is that you don't want an unwilling soldier next to you. You have to depend on that person doing their duty. As found in vietnam in particular, when you had unwilling troops, they could be just as bad as the enemy who was trying to shoot you. Not everyone can look a gun in the face and still think coolly. (I've done it, from a drunk who pulled a gun. It's hard to think logically when the adrenalin is pumping and you know your next action may well mean you die.) Plenty of people who couldn't face a rifle directly found honorable service as medics, cooks, drivers, pilots, mappers, recon, mechanics, amphib drivers, etc. Shooting Mr. Slovik was a moral evil. One wonders how many cowards died as a direct result because while they couldn't do their duty in the field effectively but they wouldn't request being reassigned, either, for fear of being shot. And so hesitated a fatal moment to shoot when a German soldier was shooting at them. Or didn't move fast enough to get away from a grenade. Or froze up when artillery was falling and didn't get under the nearest cover. Or otherwise failed and died. Not everyone is cut out for rifle and bayonet. But they still can serve in other ways honorably. Eisenhower wasn't much on being questioned when he did something he knew was wrong. His book Crusade in Europe makes that plain. His dishonest complaint about armchair quarterbacking said it all. Such quarterbacks get things right frequently because they are not embroiled in the situation they are analyzing. The person IN a situation often cannot see what an observer will see.
True. It needs to be kept in mind that EVERY person blacklisted by the Unamerican Activities Committee under McCarthy turned out later to prove him right. Particularly Hollywood. Every person, not a few, not most, EVERY person that the committee blacklisted turned out to be a Communist, National Socialist, International Socialist, Parliamentary Socialist, or other type of Socialist. And yet our schoolbooks describe him as a loose cannon. I wish every committee in Congress was that thorough. One of the things that burns me up from that period was the media's tarnish of Edward Teller. The media claims that he didn't exonerate Oppenheimer out of ambition. Considering that Oppenheimer was a Communist who was a member of Communist organizations, it's not really all that reasonable to make such a claim. Apparently Teller didn't know about Oppenheimers' dishonest activities and he said he didn't know at depositions. The media essentially wanted Teller to lie for Oppenheimer. Gee, we had a few dishonest people in the media even then...
In response to:

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:42 AM
this happened under nazism and communism. The idea of filing charges that are political in nature.
In response to:

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:40 AM
I messed up the first sentence. I meant that one of the greatest regrets of my life is what most women my age chose to do with theirs. I didn't mean that your statement by itself was a greatest regret.
In response to:

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:39 AM
It's one of the greatest regrets of my life that you just described most women of my generation (genx). They were taught feminist ideas of "something for nothing", "get things without effort" and so on. And so most got into drugs and 20-30 years later most still are on drugs. With all that goes with that. By the late 1980s it had become common for them to neglect their out-of-wedlock kids.
In response to:

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:36 AM
"It would be like Sean Hannity breaking a scandal about Ted Cruz" That is hardly true. Hannity is an honest man and wrongdoing in the republican party makes him angry just like the democrats doing something wrong does. The title of the article should be "The Hedonism of Wendy Davis". The hedonists were Greeks who believed that life should be one only of pleasure and tried to avoid anything that would cause pain. (That worked really well. NOT.) Considering how often the truth hurts, it should be hardly surprising that hedonists like the Democrats despise it so.)
In response to:

Why the world hates the Jews

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 12:04 PM
I doubt that very seriously. None of the Jews I've met or known thought anything of the sort. Their biggest single problem, bar none, was a stubborn rebellion against God.
1 - 10 Next