OGTEleven

How much does a rape go for these days? I agree that it will likely happen. It is shameful for everyone involved and does not speak well for our society.

I was listening to the news on the radio this morning and it was filled with democrats asking for quarters. I think I counted up about $3.75 worth. There was actually a sound bite from Edwards saying he thought there was too much rhetoric at the convention, it was "over the top" and should be stopped. I know the dems would never have a speaker saying things like Bush betrayed his country and the trust the people (cough Gore cough cough). That would be over the top.

Whatever. If the report I saw was correct, it was the first time the rape shield law in Colorado had been interpreted in this fashion. That's ok though, he's a big star and those three days prove she is a worthless slut that deserved what she got (at least that was the defense strategy, that the judge played into). I agree that leaks are common, but leaks by the court published to the internet with the victim's name (TWICE) aren't that common as far as I can tell. Kobe's "apology" was likely a bargain as you stated in the other post. What gets me is that an innocent man should never sign something that said "I can see now how she thought it was not consensual". The best that memo does is keep some vague possibility of weasling a "she's crazy" analysis by the Kobe sycophants. It sure doesn't smell right to me. I admit to having formed an opinion on this before yesterday (strong, but not definitive). Those statements did nothing to sway me away from that opinion and everything to make it stronger. If the truth is that he raped her, the ONLY reason he was not convicted is because of the battering his legal team and the inept court gave the victim. Spin it any way you'd like but that isn't right. P.S. Look at you defending the rich guy manipulating the system while I'm standing up for the rights of the hotel worker.

I saw this in the USA Today: Link Lucky for him he also now understands how a good team of lawyers can brow beat a judge into excluding "bad" evidence and including "good" evidence like the victims past sexual history. Lucky for him these exceptions are only made in certain cases such as his. We wouldn't want to have every rape victims name be made public and have her medical records for sale to the highest sleazy media bidder. That wouldn't be right. We should only do it to the ones that have the gaul to accuse a superstar like Kobe. That way their "fans" can call the victim with death threats. This will take care of any problems that the lawyers can't handle with the judge. This case turned my stomach. I don't think any of the main participants in this case are heroes, but to me the judge is an even bigger culprit than Kobe (if that is possible). He was manhandled and manipulated right in to the results Kobe's team wanted. He has no business upholding laws if he can be intimidated into decisions and if he can't control the proceedings enough to at least not let the victims name be published on the internet.....TWICE. As for Kobe's apology, how can he see that the victim would see the incident as non-consensual now when he couldn't before? He was there. Here's another question: Why would he release a statement with that much detail publicly?

Too bad that the liberal thought process is not more conducive to spelling. BTW, I agree about Hannity. I should point out that his one strong trait is his use of a Martina McBride intro song on his radio show (hubba hubba ).

I'm not sure that I understood your post properly. Are you saying that those four speakers (pataki, et. al.) believe in limited government and have a record that shows it? If so.......................................................................... If not, what speakers are you typing about?

Will Clark and Grace Slick? Other than the San Francisco commonality it seems odd to me. Who's Ellen?

Was that so nice that you had to say it twice?

When I saw that first toy, I thought it was just a random thing. Now I wonder..... Coincidence?

Hicks wasn't even on the Bisons. He was on the OL before the Bills cut him. They were looking in the wrong stadium. Geez. I hate to nit-pick but their spelling is also in need of work.

When was that? What actions are examples of this?

How does this relate to my example? Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones had equal "strength" thorugh their whole lives. Mr. Smith is now being milked by Mr. Jones. How does your weight example refute the usefullness of the original post in the thread? When taxes are paid solely on purchases, he who purchases more carries more of the weight.

I'm not rooting against them. If they lose, I think it should be a wake up call to the person really at fault....... David Stern. The NBA has ceased being basketball. The NBA players over there are playing a game that has rules and where the home team doesn't shoot 85% of the free throws. It's no wonder they were confused at first. If they win it will be a credit to them and to Larry Brown. If they win, Stern will go about his business putting a smiley face on the WWE like farce that is the NBA. If they lose, he'll take none of the blame. I don't think fans should root against the US, but I do give those that are some credit. They may not like the personalities (although how can you not like Tim Duncan for goodness sake), they may not like the NBA, but I doubt race has anything to do with it. If it did, everyone would have rooted against the Jordan-led dream team.

I think he should give it back. Judgement errors, missed calls and "possible changed routines" are different than simple, straghtforward math errors. Winning on a technicality because someone was late filing a protest is lame. I'm sure it would be heartbreaking to have a gold in your hand and have to give it back, but if it is the right thing to do, it should be done. The saddest thing is that the guy should be IMMENSELY PROUD of the silver medal that he earned. 72 hoops, Roy Jones and other examples all fall into the category of "2 wrongs, don't make a right". With all of that said the IOC is handling this terribly. They should either switch the official results or affirm them. They have no business shifting the pressure to Hamm or even the US organization. The mistake was theirs. They should correct it.

I agree that a VAT, sales or consumption tax (call it what you like) is not very plausible at this point. Perhaps it will become more plausble over time through technology. I don't really agree that it is unfair. The diminishing returns example you use, in my view, is not valid for two reasons. 1. I can 237.4 candy bars before I puke. 2. The whole point of a currency is that it levels the playing field between goods and services. Your 2nd dollar is no less valuable than your first. The products it can acquire may end up having a different mix. You may buy a soda or a stomach pump after you've had you're limit of candy, but it hasn't changed the value of the currency. I'm sure you wouldn't want to cap someone's total assets beacuse dollrs have ceased to have meaning. There are "unfair" components of any tax system because A) They are designed by people and B ) they are "consumed" by people. The design of today's code has certainly become broken. The fact that there are so many lines in a tax return and its adjunct forms is proof. The comsumption of today's tax (and related) system is what tends to bug me the most. Here's an example: Take Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. Each makes 100k a year in 1986 (right after college) and they get identical raises over time to 150k. Between 1986 and 2004, each has made an aggreagate of 2.25 million (average of 125k per). They both lost their job last month and took 50k positions. By coincidence, each started a family with twins in 86, and each have had identical, medical, income and necessity expenses over the last 18 years. Mr. Jones likes fast cars, fancy dinners, expensive wine, HDTV, and season tickets to the 50 yard line of the fish (further proof of his stupidity). He decided he could do better in the market than any old 401k plan and he's going to start investing any day now. He's on his 3rd mortgage and has a very low net worth, but he has lived in a huge house since 87. Mr. Smith started investing right away, lived below his means and has already paid the mortgage on his modest but comfortable house. His only indulgence is seasons to the Bills in the end zone. Now that the twins are going to go to college, guess what? Mr. Smith has enough to pay their tuition despite his recent job woes. Mr. Jones is ok because his moderate income and lack of assets help him easily qualify for assistance which will be partially paid by Mr. Smith's tax bill. When it's time to retire, it is probable that Mr. Smith's social security benefits will get hampered by "means testing" while Mr. Jones, who is poor, will receive increased benefits. Long winded, I know, but my point is that no system can be completely fair without an in depth audit and value judgement of every transaction that every person ever makes. I doubt anyone is in favor of that. We should all be open to any system that closely mirrors its results without undue government oversight. At some levels a consumption tax might be able to do this, at least in theory. Implementation is another matter.

A bong sort of looks like a lamp.

Two words: Courtesy flush As for the travel plaza folks: Do you think you might want to keep a plunger closer than 40 miles away?

I agree that Gilbride was THE main cause and the story about the "I don't believe it" looks in the huddle is likely true. If that is the case, they should have thrown a mutiny and started calling their own plays. There is only so much time each player has and if all 11 knew what needed to be done..... Maybe this year there will be no such need.

Keep the story going We get it. JK wants big bad Bush to tell the SBV's what not to say. Bush denounced all 527 ads. Kerry denounced the ones that are against him and is silent on those against Bush. Now he's going to pull a publicity stunt by showing up in Texas. If I were a cynic I'd think Kerry is trying to make Vietnam and his service the entire campaign. If I were more of a cynic I'd probably think that's because his thought process was formed in the 60s and hasn't changed since. It might seem like he was less than open minded. Bush has left Kerry many open doors to election. If he said one word about curbing illegal immigration he'd be up in the polls by 52%. There are others. Kerry won't take them because he is single minded. He has not said one specific thing on any topic other than Vietnam. Vietnam for God's sake. I'm too young to reallyremember Vietnam but I do remember the slogans the hippies threw around like "one day, we'll be the ones in charge". Sadly, from a look at Kerry's campaign it seems he's just been waiting to get older so that he can be in charge. It doesn't look like he knows what to do once he gets there.