Oh boy, I bet I get misunderstood for this comment! So I'll admit up front that I am an old fogey male, and further add that I think drunks are idiots and that far too many men treat women like cattle to roundup and brand like prizes at the county fair.

Having said that, there is a difference between some nutjob on the prowl for women to rape using a knife or gun or just plain sheer size, and drunk college students. If the woman was too drunk to protest, I'd guess odds are the man was pretty plastered too.

We have all seen plenty of drunks who are out of control. They knock over furniture, bump into people, speak slowly and loudly and can't understand anyone else, and last but not least, they drive when they shouldn't and sometimes kill people. It would not surprise me in the least if many of these college rapes are simply the result of too semi-conscious people out of control and as incapable of understanding "NO" as they are in saying it.

It may still be rape, but it's like the difference between pre-meditated first degree homicide and negligent manslaughter (or whatever it would be called) by a drunk driver. The law doesn't call it first degree murder when that same drunk man kills someone while driving; why should all rapes be in one category?

I doubt that's what the dipshit meant though. She sounds like another Ann Coulter, ashamed of being a human being and doing her best to degrade the entire human race (or at least the female half) in order to drag everyone down to her level and feel a bit justified in her low self-esteem.

One minor point is that I simply don't trust her. When she stood up for Bill in spite of all his philandering, I would have admired her if she had said "He's my man, mind your own business", but instead, she called his accusers liars when she knew they weren't. I can't forgive that kind of dishonesty, and I think it shows in her refusing to admit that her 2002 war vote was a mistake. Instead she dances around it.

But the main reason is that I am tired of these dynasties. Reagan begot Bush who begot Shrub, and 20 years of that is enough. I don't want 16 years of Clintons. I want change. I would rather have voted for Ron Paul, thinking it better to have the President and Congress in opposite parties, but Obama is at least change.

I am really really tired of the same old divisive politics we have had since 1980.

I grew up on them, and now have the Rhino complete collection. I hope you do too, King.

I hope I have those names right; the books are elsewhere right now. They also provide an alternate history, taking place in 1947 after Brit fascists made peace with Hitler sometime between Dunkirk and Hitler's invasion of Russia. They are both good and scary. I half hope she doesn't write any more, and half hope she does, because if she does, I will read them, and I dread even thinking about the terrible place Britain has become.

Modern day Britain has become a different sort of dreary place, what with trying to ban pointed knives and actually banning and removing fire extinguishers from an apartment block because they don't want the residents to try to stick around and fight small fires.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3525380.ece

It begins thusly:

Fire extinguishers may be removed from blocks of flats across Britain after they were deemed dangerous by buildings risk assessors at two blocks on the South Coast.

The reason given is not that they are faulty, but they don't want residents to try to fight fires, rather to evacuate and let the whole damned apartment block burn down, presumably.

The Supreme Court said the appeals have to follow the standard appeals process within the court system. That's all. If the losers' lawyers didn't bring this up earlier, it's no different than if some other evidence hadn't been brought up. At some point, you finish a court case. At some point, all the appeals run out. If these losers could show the state withheld evidence, or framed them, there's a legal process for getting a new trial. If their own lawyer was obviously incompetent, there's a process for that too. But you don't get a new trial because the President wants it. It's called separation of powers.

How would all you bashers like it if the President could arbitrarily order any court to retry someone, regardless of where the case stands in the legal system?

ronaldraygun has it half right, that today's economy sure isn't laissez-faire. But it sure ain't what he calls it either. It's regulate those who don't have the power to screw things up, don't regulate those who can screw it up, and when it gets screwed up, bail out those who screwed it up, because, as we all know, trickle down theory works fine for the ones at the top.

Remember the golden rule: those who have the gold make the rules. They can call it laissez-faire, Keynsian, free market, no matter, this economy has had many names in many languages in many countries and times.