Azalin

of course I did. we're not debating the definition of rape. what the hell is wrong with reading comprehension around here? the whole thread is about the misrepresentation of Will's piece and the visceral reaction from the left, not whether or not the Swarthmore (or any other rape case) case is valid or not.

Will clearly thinks what happened there in okay? what portion of his column states this 'clearly'? I see this: 'Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous, often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia's progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia's turn to be broken to government's saddle.' could you enlighten me as to what portion of Will's column clearly states that he thinks what happened in the Swarthmore case is okay?

did you read the linked article?

that makes about as much sense as this bit, which is followed with commentary by Gator:

'The designs were proofed and signed off by their boss, who clearly had a heavy night with the lads playing poker and before he'd had his first vat of coffee the following morning' at least that's less offensive than saying that 'they all look alike'

what the hell does a SNL skit or his clothing preferences have to do with anything, Herr Einstein? YOU accuse anyone of denying reality? not only does the left routinely exploit issues, they usually create them and then exploit them. that's pretty much Will's point, which you obviously didn't grasp to begin with.

and once again, you prove my point by doing exactly like I said. to them, it doesn't matter if a victim is genuine or not. ergo, they're in the business of creating as many as they can.

there's nothing quite like intentionally taking a columnist out of context in order to have them silenced. while the deployment of this stratagem isn't solely property of the left, they use it more frequently and in greater earnest than any other group I've seen. when you can't win a debate on principle, simply silence the other side by smearing them.

as a Celt, I must beg to differ. Robert E Howard made barbarism cool.

that's the only option for those bereft of intellect or vocabulary.

yep, just like all the social security tax that's supposedly going into a separate account, it all actually goes into the general fund. which of course has been overspent by approximately 9 trillion dollars in the last six years.

are you Alan Grayson, or do you just have the same writers?

that pretty much disqualifies him for government work.

that's a pretty screwed up deal though. the way I understand it, congress requires the post office to pay approximately 5 billion anually to fund their pensions, but the money is placed directly into the general fund and not into any account to back the the pensions. they essentially start the year with a 5 billion dollar deficit and have to try to play catch up all year long, then they get nailed for operating in the red. that's not to say that the USPS can't be run more efficiently, but they get unfair negative PR for their annual losses because most people never hear about the mandatory pension payment.

right off the top of my head I'd have to say Frank Sinatra (but the voices in my head keep saying 'Frank Zappa')

she could have tattoos of Che, Adolph, and Sadam across her stomach and I wouldn't give a damn.

it looks like an audition for a pedestrian version of a remake of 'The Birds'.

meth, firearms, and crack....always a dangerous combination.

me? I wear it under my Stetson, eh!

I use the veins in my temples as my marker. if they don't stand out to the point where my vision blurs, then things are well enough. that said, these past six years have been the blurriest in recent memory.

is that all?

he's probably even Canadian.

I'm not trying to split hairs or play semantics, but the federal government absolutely is one entity. just like a person is, it's comprised of many working components, but it functions as one entity. in my opinion, to look at it otherwise is to unnecessarily complicate things. you say parts of it work well, but what parts are those? I can't name a single one. we've handed control over to people who seek only to promote themselves, and they do so at our expense. the entire operation is rife with corruption and ineptitude while they have what small segment of the population that gives a damn at eachothers' throats, preoccupied in partisan bickering. any help that they offer to the needy is always done at the expense of those that have managed to cover their own butts the hard way, and they skim massive amounts of that tax money to fuel the paper-pushers and career bureaucrats they claim to need to administer this wonderful largesse to the people. if anyone speaks out in anger or disgust over the incredible self-serving waste that is Washington, they're routinely called hard-hearted, uncaring, and often much worse. I personally find it incredible that anyone would think for one second to put any kind of faith in the federal government at all.

pretty much the same thing that happens in my home, on my commode after chili taco night.