|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 30, 2015 8:20:28 GMT -5
Just google "expelled rape accusation" You'll get a pile of links. Start here: Reason.comFail. This article does not contain the name of or a quote from a specific feminist advocating this. Administrators, politicians, and bandwagon riders of all stripes have accused men of rape on flimsy evidence; I do not deny that. Why they do this - one could probably write a sociology paper on that, or a psychology paper. My point has been that neither you nor redleg has produced a person quoted as advocating this. You seem to think it's some kind of feminist conspiracy, for reasons only you understand. It isn't. For a long time it was incredibly difficult for rape victims to get justice. They were routinely portrayed as having "asked for it" by style of dress or conduct or some other irrelevant thing by defense attorneys whose job is to get their clients set free. Why prosecutors did not object or judges disallow these lines of defense is a more complex question. But they did not. Then, as eventually happened, people started realizing how bad this was. How difficult it was for rape victims to even come forward, and how the system actively discouraged it, enabling rapists to continue to offend. And the reaction has swung things perhaps too much in the other direction, to the point where women who make false accusations aren't held to account for it. It's no one person or group of people calling for this behavior, it's collective guilt at what the previous few generations did. Blame them if you want to blame anyone. As to your cite, I will say this: a gentleman does not get a woman drunk for the purpose of having sex with her, or have sex with her while she is impaired. Men who behave like boors aren't entitled to much sympathy, in my view. No matter what she says. Why they do it is because they are under the influence of a feminist movement. If you want to excuse that, fine, be part of the problem. No one in that article got a woman drunk fo the purposes of having sex. They both got drunk, because that's what college students do. It is still difficult for rape victims to get justice. When leftists over-react, and don't care about justice for the falsely accused, it gets HARDER. Turns out, there are a lot of women out there who will use a false rape accusation to punish a man for something petty. We've reached a very sad state of affairs in this country where rape is simultaneously both the most under-reported crime, and the most falsely-reported crime. Finally, anyone who repeats the 1 in 5 college women will be raped stat also meets your criteria.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 30, 2015 9:14:00 GMT -5
In the first place, why should perversion be encoded in law? Pubs don't care what gays do to each other, but see no reason for the law to encode it. They see plenty of reasons for the law to target it, though. Or did you forget about the ill-named DoMA? In the second place, over half the country sees abortion as murder. A bald-faced lie. A tiny percentage of the country regards all abortion as murder. Most of the country is fine with it anytime within the first trimester. Fewer are okay with it until the end of a the second trimester. And a tiny percentage wants it legal until birth. And most of the country (principal execeptions: religious GOPers) is fine with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or if pregnancy endangers the mother's health. In the third place, there are colleges and universities all over the country that have "feminist groups" demanding that accusers be considered guilty regardless of evidence. With so many people, either you or Ranger John should *certainly* be able to find one specific name, with a linked quote. Yet you haven't. Jen Ponce, Lena Durham, the writer for Rolling Stone that decided that "even if the actual story was all a lie, it's really true", and a host of others. Just look at all those calling for college and university staff to adjudicate rape accusations, and to simply accept the accuser's account without even investigating. As for the "lie", just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it wrong. Most of the country sees abortion as killing a child.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 30, 2015 9:16:30 GMT -5
And the things, in our country, that are Caesar's, are defined by the Constitution. Today's Leftists, and far too many LIV's, are content to render everything to Caesar, not just what is his. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing welfare, corporate or otherwise, health care, or nearly any of the other accretions that have grown up around the corruption we call the Federal Government. Your pension is not defined by the Constitution, but you're not giving it back. I guess what you really mean is "things redleg, and only redleg, believes in are okay" Sorry, but yes, it is. As I said, it falls under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Since national security is an enumerated power, the N and P clause authorizes Congress to spend monies for said defense. That includes pensions. Since there is no enumerated power to confiscate one person's property just to transfer it to another person, solely because the second person is destitute, welfare is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 30, 2015 9:33:43 GMT -5
Why they do it is because they are under the influence of a feminist movement. If you want to excuse that, fine, be part of the problem. No one in that article got a woman drunk fo the purposes of having sex. They both got drunk, because that's what college students do. So, rather than simple human nature you prefer a vast, nebulous feminist conspiracy as the explanation. Tell me, do they send out packets when women hit 21, like the AARP does to people at 50? If you get drunk and have sex with a drunk woman it has the potential to end very badly. Alcohol can really screw people up and has to be used with care. People that don't understand this usually learn the hard way. It is still difficult for rape victims to get justice. When leftists over-react, and don't care about justice for the falsely accused, it gets HARDER. Turns out, there are a lot of women out there who will use a false rape accusation to punish a man for something petty. We've reached a very sad state of affairs in this country where rape is simultaneously both the most under-reported crime, and the most falsely-reported crime. I addressed that. Finally, anyone who repeats the 1 in 5 college women will be raped stat also meets your criteria. Not if it's true, which I do not know one way or another. And not really, since what I asked for, what I thought was a simple request, was a feminist and a quote from him or her. redleg came the closest, but even he only found a magazine writer. Partial credit, although it does serve as further evidence of the increasing irrelevance of Rolling Stone due to poor editorial decision making. It should stick to music.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 30, 2015 9:36:10 GMT -5
Your pension is not defined by the Constitution, but you're not giving it back. I guess what you really mean is "things redleg, and only redleg, believes in are okay" Sorry, but yes, it is. As I said, it falls under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Since national security is an enumerated power, the N and P clause authorizes Congress to spend monies for said defense. That includes pensions. Since there is no enumerated power to confiscate one person's property just to transfer it to another person, solely because the second person is destitute, welfare is illegal. So, the Necessary and Proper clause is one you strict constructionists regard as subject to interpretation. Learn something new every day. Thought you'd be consistent, but I guess not when your own entitlement is on the line.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 30, 2015 9:41:49 GMT -5
Most of the country sees abortion as killing a child. Got a cite? No religious sites, please, unless they are quoting a poll that's truly representative of the nation and not merely one that's representative of their faith. Here's one of mine: www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspxAs you can see: 21% of the country believes abortion should be illegal in all circumstances 28% believes it should be legal in all circumstances. 78% believe it should be legal in some or all circumstances (28% all plus 50% some) 47% of the country call themselves pro-life. 46% call themselves pro-choice. Some of those pro-lifers would have to be okay with what you call murder under some circumstances. Presumably, they do not so regard it.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 30, 2015 10:26:18 GMT -5
Your pension is not defined by the Constitution, but you're not giving it back. I guess what you really mean is "things redleg, and only redleg, believes in are okay" Sorry, but yes, it is. As I said, it falls under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Since national security is an enumerated power, the N and P clause authorizes Congress to spend monies for said defense. That includes pensions. Since there is no enumerated power to confiscate one person's property just to transfer it to another person, solely because the second person is destitute, welfare is illegal.Convenient! The State can confiscate wealth for military pensions but not for "welfare"..... SS, disability, unemployment, health care, emergency relief, etc.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 30, 2015 11:08:38 GMT -5
Sorry, but yes, it is. As I said, it falls under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Since national security is an enumerated power, the N and P clause authorizes Congress to spend monies for said defense. That includes pensions. Since there is no enumerated power to confiscate one person's property just to transfer it to another person, solely because the second person is destitute, welfare is illegal. So, the Necessary and Proper clause is one you strict constructionists regard as subject to interpretation. Learn something new every day. Thought you'd be consistent, but I guess not when your own entitlement is on the line. The only ones that regard it as "subject to interpretation" are the Left, who want to use it to codify the illegal explosion of government. It says what it means.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 30, 2015 11:11:22 GMT -5
Sorry, but yes, it is. As I said, it falls under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Since national security is an enumerated power, the N and P clause authorizes Congress to spend monies for said defense. That includes pensions. Since there is no enumerated power to confiscate one person's property just to transfer it to another person, solely because the second person is destitute, welfare is illegal.Convenient! The State can confiscate wealth for military pensions but not for "welfare"..... SS, disability, unemployment, health care, emergency relief, etc. Yes, since the foundation documents list that as one of the enumerated powers of government. SS is a Ponzi scheme, which sends people to prison if done outside of government (see Madoff, Bernie). Unemployment, health care, "emergency relief", ect are fine at the state level, illegal at the Federal level. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution imposes the same restrictions on state governments that it imposes on the Federal. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the Constitution, but maybe some study and assistance would help.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 30, 2015 11:52:16 GMT -5
Why they do it is because they are under the influence of a feminist movement. If you want to excuse that, fine, be part of the problem. No one in that article got a woman drunk fo the purposes of having sex. They both got drunk, because that's what college students do. So, rather than simple human nature you prefer a vast, nebulous feminist conspiracy as the explanation. Tell me, do they send out packets when women hit 21, like the AARP does to people at 50? In a dispute between two parties, it's NOT human nature to simply take one side at its word and not even listen to the other. When one side is female, and the other male, only listening to the female is pretty much the definition of feminism these days. And, no. They don't send out packets. They teach this stuff in elementary school, and even offer "women's studies" degrees in College. It would be nice if that applied to both parties. But it's "slut shaming" to suggest a woman should be careful about the company she gets drunk in. [/quote] If it's true, then modern college campuses are far more dangerous places than the worst neighborhoods in Detroit and Baltimore. And no woman should ever set foot on a college campus. Of course it isn't true, and anyone who actually put some thought into it would be embarrassed for the people who repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 30, 2015 16:22:01 GMT -5
Convenient! The State can confiscate wealth for military pensions but not for "welfare"..... SS, disability, unemployment, health care, emergency relief, etc. Yes, since the foundation documents list that as one of the enumerated powers of government. SS is a Ponzi scheme, which sends people to prison if done outside of government (see Madoff, Bernie). Unemployment, health care, "emergency relief", ect are fine at the state level, illegal at the Federal level. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution imposes the same restrictions on state governments that it imposes on the Federal. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the Constitution, but maybe some study and assistance would help.
Apparently i do not understand the Constitution. The Army I was a part of did not recognize the Constitution. Censoring of mail and news was policy, free speech was not possible, taxation did not apply to the military personnel, and access to the US judicial system was not possible. Is the VA mentioned in the Constitution? VA loans? GI Bill? Free health care? Free golf course play? Maybe you confuse the spirit and prosperity of the American Citizen with the sophomoric notions of an ideology of limited reach.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 30, 2015 16:51:07 GMT -5
Yes, since the foundation documents list that as one of the enumerated powers of government. SS is a Ponzi scheme, which sends people to prison if done outside of government (see Madoff, Bernie). Unemployment, health care, "emergency relief", ect are fine at the state level, illegal at the Federal level. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution imposes the same restrictions on state governments that it imposes on the Federal. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the Constitution, but maybe some study and assistance would help.
Apparently i do not understand the Constitution. The Army I was a part of did not recognize the Constitution. Censoring of mail and news was policy, free speech was not possible, taxation did not apply to the military personnel, and access to the US judicial system was not possible. Is the VA mentioned in the Constitution? VA loans? GI Bill? Free health care? Free golf course play? Maybe you confuse the spirit and prosperity of the American Citizen with the sophomoric notions of an ideology of limited reach. The VA might not be the best example of a program worthy of this country.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 30, 2015 17:45:00 GMT -5
The VA might not be the best example of a program worthy of this country. But it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, a strict constructionist must oppose its existence. Unless, of course, he's really a sort of semi-strict constructionist. People have justified welfare using "general welfare" and that's exactly the same argument redleg has used. My point is that you can't really be a strict constructionist any more, inasmuch as the Founding Fathers would regard the modern world as full of sorcery; much that they knew and accepted simply isn't relevant any longer.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 30, 2015 20:27:57 GMT -5
The VA might not be the best example of a program worthy of this country. But it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, a strict constructionist must oppose its existence. Unless, of course, he's really a sort of semi-strict constructionist. People have justified welfare using "general welfare" and that's exactly the same argument redleg has used. My point is that you can't really be a strict constructionist any more, inasmuch as the Founding Fathers would regard the modern world as full of sorcery; much that they knew and accepted simply isn't relevant any longer. Given that the VA was created to look after veterans, it could be construed to be part of the military, and therefore authorized by the Constitution. The thing is, it does such a sucky job of it, it's not something I'd hold up as an example of something the government ought to be doing.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 30, 2015 22:16:07 GMT -5
Given that the VA was created to look after veterans, it could be construed to be part of the military, and therefore authorized by the Constitution. The thing is, it does such a sucky job of it, it's not something I'd hold up as an example of something the government ought to be doing. But according to redleg's version of strict construction, it's not specifically mentioned, so it's not allowed. My argument is that redleg's understanding of the Constitution is incomplete. Most everything government does, it does badly. Except maybe war. We seem to be pretty good at that, although we haven't faced an opponent who is our equal in technology, military skill or funding in quite some time. What concerns me is that those opponents are studying how ISIS is working and will successfully employ such tactics someday. But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 31, 2015 5:42:12 GMT -5
Given that the VA was created to look after veterans, it could be construed to be part of the military, and therefore authorized by the Constitution. The thing is, it does such a sucky job of it, it's not something I'd hold up as an example of something the government ought to be doing. But according to redleg's version of strict construction, it's not specifically mentioned, so it's not allowed. My argument is that redleg's understanding of the Constitution is incomplete. Most everything government does, it does badly. Except maybe war. We seem to be pretty good at that, although we haven't faced an opponent who is our equal in technology, military skill or funding in quite some time. What concerns me is that those opponents are studying how ISIS is working and will successfully employ such tactics someday. But I digress. Don't you think there are Constitutional limits on what the government does? Or are you ok with anything Congress authorizes?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 31, 2015 8:04:28 GMT -5
Yes, since the foundation documents list that as one of the enumerated powers of government. SS is a Ponzi scheme, which sends people to prison if done outside of government (see Madoff, Bernie). Unemployment, health care, "emergency relief", ect are fine at the state level, illegal at the Federal level. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution imposes the same restrictions on state governments that it imposes on the Federal. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the Constitution, but maybe some study and assistance would help.
Apparently i do not understand the Constitution. The Army I was a part of did not recognize the Constitution. Censoring of mail and news was policy, free speech was not possible, taxation did not apply to the military personnel, and access to the US judicial system was not possible. Is the VA mentioned in the Constitution? VA loans? GI Bill? Free health care? Free golf course play? Maybe you confuse the spirit and prosperity of the American Citizen with the sophomoric notions of an ideology of limited reach. You were drafted, I volunteered. The military changed a great deal after the draft was ended. We didn't have our mail censored, but the penalty for disclosing classified info was severe. As for the VA, no, it's not. Neither is the GI bill. However, the GI Bill that was in effect when I was in meant the soldier paid in a set amount, then that amount was matched. The health care is vital, because most jobs don't include the very real possibility of being shot, stabbed, blown up, or injured in training. Regular insurance refuses to cover any military personnel, so some sort of health care had to be included. And I paid for insurance my entire time in the military, to cover my family. I still do. The golf courses are more for rich pols than soldiers, although the soldiers can play them if there is room. When I was in Korea, soldiers couldn't get on the courses, because the Koreans had all the tee times. Perhaps you confuse the greed and hunger for power with the law of the land. There is no room for the dictatorship that the Federal government has become, much of that built on getting citizens in thrall to the government and keeping them there.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 31, 2015 8:08:57 GMT -5
The VA might not be the best example of a program worthy of this country. But it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, a strict constructionist must oppose its existence. Unless, of course, he's really a sort of semi-strict constructionist. People have justified welfare using "general welfare" and that's exactly the same argument redleg has used. My point is that you can't really be a strict constructionist any more, inasmuch as the Founding Fathers would regard the modern world as full of sorcery; much that they knew and accepted simply isn't relevant any longer. Except that there is nothing "general" about welfare. It's very specific, and individual. As for the VA, that was a failed attempt to help those that were injured in government service. What you claim is that those that serve the country instead of themselves are not to have the same retirement that you have. Those of us that served spent the time that you used to build your career making sure that you had a life to use to build that career. I made less than $1000 a month for the first 6 or 7 years I was in the Army. On top of that, I moved every 2-3 years. Hard to put back a retirement on that sort of schedule. So, since the Revolution, Congress has used the national defense clause to allow a pension.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 31, 2015 8:12:26 GMT -5
The VA might not be the best example of a program worthy of this country. But it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, a strict constructionist must oppose its existence. Unless, of course, he's really a sort of semi-strict constructionist. People have justified welfare using "general welfare" and that's exactly the same argument redleg has used. My point is that you can't really be a strict constructionist any more, inasmuch as the Founding Fathers would regard the modern world as full of sorcery; much that they knew and accepted simply isn't relevant any longer. That's a specious argument. What you seem to claim is that the 1A doesn't matter any more, because telephones, TV, and radio didn't exist back then. Or that the 4A doesn't matter, because computers make privacy irrelevant now. Or that the 10A is irrelevant because the Feds are doing it all now. Nothing in the Constitution is based on technology. People haven't changed. We still have people that will do anything they must to gain and maintain power over everyone else. The Constitution is designed to mitigate that power. Unfortunately, we also have serfs, who are more than happy to have a dictator, as long as that dictator gives them stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 31, 2015 9:22:40 GMT -5
Don't you think there are Constitutional limits on what the government does? Or are you ok with anything Congress authorizes? Have you read what I've written? Yes, I favor strong limitations on what the government can do. In some cases I'd like to see the Constitution amended. However, I do not, as some do, intrepret the Constitution in a way that supports what I agree with while disallowing what I don't like. The only document that would encode those ideas would be one I'd write.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 31, 2015 9:29:47 GMT -5
What you claim is that those that serve the country instead of themselves are not to have the same retirement that you have. Those of us that served spent the time that you used to build your career making sure that you had a life to use to build that career. I made less than $1000 a month for the first 6 or 7 years I was in the Army. On top of that, I moved every 2-3 years. Hard to put back a retirement on that sort of schedule. So, since the Revolution, Congress has used the national defense clause to allow a pension. I don't have a pension. I cashed it my voluntary contributions years ago and invested them; the company kept it's contributions. What I have is a 401(k), endowed almost entirely by my pre-tax dollars. That and savings are my retirement. Which, if you read back through the thread, is exactly what I said you should have. But you, like the other entitled classes, want more. And you also get Social Security. Plus you get tax breaks. More power to you for collecting all that. Just don't pretend you're not entitled, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 31, 2015 13:44:53 GMT -5
Don't you think there are Constitutional limits on what the government does? Or are you ok with anything Congress authorizes? Have you read what I've written? Yes, I favor strong limitations on what the government can do. In some cases I'd like to see the Constitution amended. However, I do not, as some do, intrepret the Constitution in a way that supports what I agree with while disallowing what I don't like. The only document that would encode those ideas would be one I'd write. I have read what you've written. And based on what you've written, it's clear that the only difference between you and redleg is where you draw the line regarding what the Constiution does and doesn't permit the government to do.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 31, 2015 15:20:19 GMT -5
Yes, since the foundation documents list that as one of the enumerated powers of government. SS is a Ponzi scheme, which sends people to prison if done outside of government (see Madoff, Bernie). Unemployment, health care, "emergency relief", ect are fine at the state level, illegal at the Federal level. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution imposes the same restrictions on state governments that it imposes on the Federal. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the Constitution, but maybe some study and assistance would help.
Apparently i do not understand the Constitution. The Army I was a part of did not recognize the Constitution. Censoring of mail and news was policy, free speech was not possible, taxation did not apply to the military personnel, and access to the US judicial system was not possible. Your Army experiance makes me damn glad I was a submarine swabbie. Never was our news censored though while under it was cut sort because the radiomen spent time copying it out to pass around a sheet of the big stuff. No mail was ever censored going in or out. Short of calling an officer a MFer and saying I wont obey your orders we could say most anything when not on watch. As for military "justice" sometimes it is and somethimes it aint. Did you expect different. I didnt.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 31, 2015 16:34:53 GMT -5
Apparently i do not understand the Constitution. The Army I was a part of did not recognize the Constitution. Censoring of mail and news was policy, free speech was not possible, taxation did not apply to the military personnel, and access to the US judicial system was not possible. Your Army experiance makes me damn glad I was a submarine swabbie. Never was our news censored though while under it was cut sort because the radiomen spent time copying it out to pass around a sheet of the big stuff. No mail was ever censored going in or out. Short of calling an officer a MFer and saying I wont obey your orders we could say most anything when not on watch. As for military "justice" sometimes it is and somethimes it aint. Did you expect different. I didnt. No, I did not. We were schooled well on the UCMJ. It was clear all along that no damn Constitution would interfere in Army affairs! The censoring was easy then before "modern times". Only the APO for communication. Phone calls were not possible. It took weeks for us to realize that MLK had been killed. I did not learn of the theatrics of the 1968 Democrat Convention until I came back to the world. Whatever happened that year I had to learn about as a history student! Conversely, like Vegas, what happened in Nam stayed in Nam.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 31, 2015 16:49:46 GMT -5
Your war was hot, mine was cold. But I can agree on "losing" things that made news back in the USofA. Trends would start or die and we had to figure them out after we got back. One time we got back and the single guys went to the barracks to shower off weeks of foul and funky wash our clothes and get ready to hit the beer joints. After an hour of Finger Tips Part 2, some guy yelled "What the Hell happened to Part 1 and who the #&@* is Little Stevie Wonder?" Like a Pothead I missed at lot of the 60's But in most cases knowing what I know now, I'm glad!
|
|