Rob's House

Between that and the campus rape free for all he doesn't have time to work on a sound fiscal plan.

Actress: Catherine Keener Actor: Kevin Spacey (Runners up: Leonardo DiCaprio; Frank Stallone)

No mention of Cracker yet. Maybe it's like the Redskins thing and no one was willing to put it out there. Also, one a lot of people probably liked but didn't know who did it was Mighty KC. FOR SQUIRRELS - Mighty KC:

As per usual, you're arguing against a point I never made. You make for a fun punching bag, but you're too stupid to follow even simple concepts. And honestly, I don't care if you are trolling. You're a fu©king douche bag. People like you are the reason no one can have a reasonable and logical discussion about how to deal with these issues.

Good call. I loved that song when it came out. I also liked Santa Monica by Everclear before subsequent releases ruined it for me. My karaoke go to from the 90s is Gin and Juice by Snoop Dogg. It's a real crowd pleaser. Speaking of Pearl Jam, I'll throw Yellow Ledbetter out there.

It's far from being a clear case of rape. That's the point. We don't know the context, we only know what was stated. The guy made a move, she said no, he stopped. A few minutes later, as two people with a recent sexual history lying in bed together half naked, he re-initiated, she does not resist and goes with it. The question really is what was reasonable for him to think at the moment, not whether she changed her mind. And without more context you cannot say with any degree of certainty that this guy was guilty of rape. Yet people find it offensive that Will suggests this guy's entitled to due process.

Fu©k your mother, self-righteous brain dead dipshit.

That's awesome that you listed Breakdown as the best GNR song of the 90s. It's one of a half-dozen or so I pondered before going with Santaria (which I admit is played out, but a great song none the less.) I'm surprised you listed Nada Surf. The whole bit about 30 year old guys doing spoken verse about high school popularity over mediocre music seemed like a corporate rock exploitation of disaffected teen angst to me, but to each his own. Blind Melon's "Change" was a great one too.

A cursory yahoo search didn't net the results and it seemed faster just to ask. It's really the whole crux of what I was saying. American leftists never want military action unless it's supporting one warlord over another in sub-Saharan Africa, but they all rolled over when conviction came with a political price tag. Obama had no such concerns. Now that it matters he's lost his clear conviction and is starting to look more like a lost kid trying to find a way out of the woods, er, desert.

That's deep.

I like that you went against the conventional wisdom with Bradham. 9 out of 10 guys who rip on him couldn't tell you why they think he sucks. They remember one bad play they saw, or more often are just repeating what they heard someone else say.

Not that it matters anyway because he had absolutely no influence or political visibility back then, as he was only a step up the ladder from the Cook County Dog Catcher at the time, but how do you know? Did he give a speech about it back then? I would assume he would oppose virtually any US military action that didn't benefit him personally/politically so I'd like to hear his rationale then rather than his position. His stance in 02 would mean nothing anyway. It's what you do when the chips are on the line that counts. Not what you espouse from the comfort of a consequence free environment. His opposition to the surge and misguided withdrawal have killed any authoritative credibility he could hope to have on the issue anyway.

Sublime - Santaria

He's correct that the victim status does attract a particular element. That's true of victim status generally. You see this with domestic violence cases. There are a lot of women who are stuck in truly abusive relationships with men they live in constant fear of. Anyone with half a heart feels genuine sympathy, if not empathy for people in that situation, wants to do whatever can reasonably be done to help stop/prevent it, AND people generally want to comfort or protect them. That means they get a lot of attention. Some other women lacking class, morality, mental stability, and/or perspective find themselves in a relationship they're not happy with and decide victim status is a good way to get attention and/or cast herself in a more positive light. Acknowledging the latter doesn't minimize the situation of the former. If you've spent any significant time around them it's easy to tell them apart. The legitimate victims are usually timid, passive, have been bullied both physically and emotionally, and more often are [to varying degrees] resistant to wear the victim label. Then you've got those who got in a slight shoving match with their boyfriend, or he grabbed her by the arm leaving a bruise, often after she admittedly hit or pushed him first or destroyed his property. These people are usually loud, offensive, take zero accountability for their own actions, and are the first to declare themselves battered women. A similar situation can exist here. I thought the example of the girl who couldn't be bothered to say stop the second time the guy she had dated and was going to bed with initiated sex minutes later and she accuses him of rape, was fitting. Now I'm not saying he should have done it, or that she should have to say no again, but come the !@#$ on. We're talking about a !@#$ing rape charge here. If you're going to throw around charges like that in that kind of situation, I don't think it's out of bounds to question the mentality behind these policies, and it's certainly not to much to ask that accepted due process standards to be followed. And the liberal exploitation of the issue is not a genuine attempt to responsibly reduce sexual assault. It's an attempt to exploit a hot button issue through dishonesty to sway political favor. First, as per usual, they overstate the problem (or put another way, lie about the prevalence of the problem) so as to call it a crisis. Then when their math is corrected they cry foul. None of it helps victims. And the manufactured outrage over a George Will column isn't doing dick **** to reduce sexual assault.

I'm not sure Spikes being the vocal leader is a good thing. Maybe, but if he were such a positive locker room presence he may not have been on the outs in NE. I understand sometimes it's good to have a guy with an aggressive attitude problem to influence more of a tough guy culture, which we've lacked, but I'm skeptical of his assumption of a leadership role being a good thing. No, it's both of you. But don't let it go to your heads; DC Tom could drop in at anytime.

You know, if you think about it, the liberals really dropped the ball on Iraq from the beginning. It's no secret that I lean conservative (primarily on fiscal issues, but still) but I do think having opposing parties is important to temper the whims of the other - even if they are my whims that are being tempered (Not that I was ever gung ho on Iraq, but even if I were). Bush had a hard-on for Iraq, and his party and supporters were either right there with him or at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The Democrats, however, claim the invasion was a mistake, but the cowardly !@#$s voted to authorize the goddamn thing from the outset. They should have dug in like the Republicans did with Obamacare and said "if you get this done we're going to go kicking and screaming." Instead, they waited until we were entrenched and couldn't pull out to launch their pathetically contrived attempt at a Viet Nam style war protest. Bottom line is, the Republicans were wrong to invade Iraq, but the Democrats (if they truly believed it was a mistake) Sat on their hands while the country went to war (a war they supposedly opposed ardently) for fear of political implications. Their only defense is they're a bunch of self-interested cowards and hypocrites.

He said nothing of the sort. This is just another case of leftists exploiting an issue (one that creates real victims no less) to try to create a scandal that the double digit IQ crowd will be too stupid to understand anyway. And if you thought he was saying that college rape victims covet the privilege of their victim status then you're significantly dumber than you get credit for, and that's saying something.

Actually the court gave itself that power, not the constitution. And just because we don't have a divine leader to hand down the final say does not mean that the court is infallible and that whatever the court says is constitutional, regardless of whether we treat it as such for sake of practicality. Our government should concern itself with the constitutionality of things on the front end as well, not just do whatever it likes or thinks it can get away with and only concern itself with the constitution on the back end.

So as long as the government determines something is constitutional it is so? Kind of circular reasoning. You don't see the problem with your statement?

Because real people are bound to make real comments and reality is offensive to the left.

Well I won my high school spelling bee so you better listen to me.

There are all manner of regulations and hurdles that exist for the purpose of creating a barrier to the market. Often times these barriers are created due to the influence of those on the inside. For example, the reason most states require one to go to an expensive law school for 3 years to earn the right to take the bar exam is because those on the inside have an interest in keeping that barrier to entry. Half the licensing requirements for any number of professions exist for the same reason. Industry regulations don't insure the success of any one company, and don't insulate companies from their competitors, but they do often serve as a barrier to at least make it difficult for smaller would be competitors, who may not have the resources to comply with (or hire lawyer's to navigate) all the complex loopholes required to enter the market, from competing with them. It's been a while since I read up on this topic so I don't have a lot of examples off the top of my head, and I don't have the time to research it at the moment, but I think the fact that so many companies spend so much money lobbying for advantages is a prima facie case that it has a significant impact.

Are you arguing that large companies don't lobby for regulations and/or see to the enforcement of those regulations for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage over potential competitors who may attempt to enter the market?

Swimming With Sharks - Starring Kevin Spacey and Doug Whaley's brother Frank. The Big Kahuna - Another under the radar Spacey flick with Danny DeVito Suburbia - Obscure movie based on the play by Eric Bogosian and Directed by Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused), and starring Giovanni Ribisi and Steve Zahn. This one takes a few viewings to really appreciate.

This is like the smoking angle. You (and by you I mean the government) insert yourself into a situation, then you obligate yourself to provide a service, then you determine that the people who never asked for your intrusion are somehow indebted to you, rather than the people who benefit. For your Wal-Mart example to be more than the ramblings of an ideologue trying desperately to rationalize his failed theories it would be necessary to show that Wal-Mart would not be able to staff their stores without this government action.