Vyce

Mike is 100% right - nothing will become of these bills. To try and somehow present the argument that because these bills have been introduced into Congress, that they're being "seriously considered" (which is what Jaxl seems to be trying to say), is laughable. Thousands of bills get introduced every year - TENS of thousands - and only a few hundred will pass. The rest generally die in committee, or if they're lucky, they die on the floor. These bills will very likely fall into the former. And I believe that Mike's analysis of the reasoning behind these bills is sound - they've been written to sort of scare everyone into thinking the draft is coming back. Or, in Rangel's case, he wants to ensure that more white kids get drafted rather than minorities. I remember glancing over the bills before, and I think that the focus on military service is somewhat overstated. If I remember correctly, the bills would require mandatory civil service, but they wouldn't necessarily require mandatory *military* service. As would I.

I honestly wish Rudy would run against her when her Senate reelection comes up, because I'm convinced he'd beat the tar out of her. That aside......look, I don't care how much one is in love with the Clinton presidency, calling him the greatest president ever is just ridiculous.

You know....not that I really want the guy to stick around, but I have to defend him on this one point. Doesn't Kenzo speak like.......little to NO English?! Surrounded by guys who don't speak my language. I'd keep to myself as well. Wow, now Austin's busy breaking up other people's marriages!

Outside of shows like "Spooks", or "Touching Evil", I couldn't give two shits about BBC.

I bought a Cure "Lovesong" one, and also the 007 Bond theme.

You are out of your FUCKING mind. "Well, they DID hire a sex offender, but it's okay, cause it doesn't seem as if they really raped or molested anyone." OUT of your fucking mind. I wish we would. Mike already started another discussion about it yesterday, but no one's been replying to it, and sadly, NO ONE in the media even cares about how suspicious it looks that guys from the 527s somehow keep getting jobs within Kerry's campaign.

oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... People will talk about Bush all they want, and make remarks about him "defeating himself", but how damning is it for a party when people like your candidate more when he does nothing but stay in the background and remain silent? And how sad is it for America that the alternative to the incumbent is a guy who we like less the more we see of him? well from everyone I have heard on this board, Kerry is a lackluster candidate at best, no one has claimed he is a savior, however Bush continues to show why Kerry can just sit back and shut the hell up, and still make it a close election. The problem is, though, eventually Kerry has to come out of hiding and start campaigning, and then people will realize how he has absolutely no platform other than "I'm not Bush." Despite what some Democrats believe, that may be enough to shore of the party base, but it's not enough to win the election. Democrats also have to hope that people will ignore Kerry's many, MANY faults. And it won't happen.

I don't believe you're really a Democrat. Because a Democrat would never admit that that was, in fact, the party line. It's NOT the party line... and if you believe that, then you are a bitter partisan fuck Just because we say we shouldn't be there, doesn't mean that because of that, these actions are justified I can't name one "official" Democrat party head (outside of perhaps Moore) who would hold it as the party line. However, I know a few Democrats / liberals in my personal life who do have that attitude. One of them, in fact, made a remark to that effect the day after 9/11. I'm not saying it's the party line, but there ARE some who feel that way. And there's no limit to the amount of scorn I feel for them.

Alright then, fair enough. I still maintain that we don't even know if there was any sex crimes involved in that situation, but anyway. It's not that I think it's not a bad idea if people endanger children and that others should do it, what I'm trying to say is just because made a bad idea and raped someone 20 years ago, doesn't make them incapable of handling information or money. Of course I have a lot less inherant tolerance for someone who raped someone underage if they're more than a few years older than the other person, we all do. Still doesn't change much in the effect that ex-cons have been doing similar work for a long time, and nobody cared because there was no politics involved. Jobber, do us all a favor, and just admit that someone in ACT, someone in that organization fucked up ROYALLY. Their OWN policy stated that they wouldn't hire someone who had been convicted of violent or serious crimes, and what happens? An investigations shows that they in fact DID hire people who had been convicted of Assault and sex offenses. Now, even assuming that you feel that even those people should be given a second chance, let me ask you this - do you think it's wise to take felons, who were convicted of violent crimes as well as sex offenses, and send them DOOR TO DOOR?!?! Would you like a sex offender - ANY degree of offender, it doesn't even have to be rape or child molestation, it could be simply a guy who was a peeping tom - would you want them sent out into YOUR neighborhood? If you WERE going to give them a second chance, then stick them at a desk somewhere back at the office. Let them answer phones. Don't put them out there on the street. Notice that I have not, even once in this entire thread, blamed this on Kerry. But I'm saying that someone in ACT fucked up incredibly. Someone there deserves a hell of a lot of blame. Are you willing to at least capitulate and agree at least in THAT regard, or are you going to continue to defend them simply because they're an organization which, generally, plays to your political interests?

This lawyer either has balls so big that they could successfully orbit the Earth as twin moons, or he's totally out of his fucking mind. Either way, it ain't happening.

Maybe Kane knows his limitations. Maybe he figures, it's easier to score with the homely chick than it is to get one of the knockouts. Logically speaking, of course, it's because she was really the only face diva who he could manipulate (i.e. her love of Matt and her fear that Kane would destroy him).

oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... People will talk about Bush all they want, and make remarks about him "defeating himself", but how damning is it for a party when people like your candidate more when he does nothing but stay in the background and remain silent? And how sad is it for America that the alternative to the incumbent is a guy who we like less the more we see of him?

I don't believe you're really a Democrat. Because a Democrat would never admit that that was, in fact, the party line.

You know, why don't they utilize Sarge for some of these green OVW boys they keep forcing on us? We're going to have to deal with them anyway, so why not give them a gimmick we can all get behind: Slaughter's Marauders. Pick a couple OVW guys. Have weekly segments with Slaughter putting them through boot camp. Eventually, they "graduate" to the active roster, with Sarge as their manager. Dress them in fatigues and have them go for tag gold in the name of the old Red, White & Blue. RUN WITH IT. And don't any of you act like this is a bad idea. There's no one else on the tag scene as it is. And it worked in the G.I. Joe movie!

That French son of a bitch! Conway was going to tap to the COBRA CLUTCH!!!

SARGE! How I wish this was for the tag titles. And for Sarge to win with the Cobra Clutch!

I'm not 100% knowledgable of Washington's sentencing guidelines, but the answer is, most likely yes. They weren't referring to JUVENILE offenders in that link.

The chances of that actually being the case are somewhere between "slim" and "none." More closer to "none" than anything else. Don't defend Jobber. If he's going to post something ridiculous like that link and expect it to prove his argument, he's going to get called on it by someone.

Oh? Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review. I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think. This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course... Then why is Statuatory Rape, exactly what you wanted proof of, mentioned as one of the offenses five times in the document? And where does it say that the statutory rape was between 17 and 19 year olds? -=Mike EXACTLY. Jobber replies to your post about a red herring with ANOTHER red herring. Just for shits & giggles, I researched the Washington state law about statutory rape. Here's what I found. Revised Washington State Code, § 9A.44.073 Let's parse this, shall we? The link provided by Jobber indicates that all of the statutory rape charges there are all first degree charges. So then, let's look at the law. "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim." Emphasis added. I underlined “and” because, as anyone who knows law will tell you, when a statute uses “and”, the word cannot be interpreted in any way other than as a requirement that at least two elements are met, that which comes before and that which comes after. Therefore, three elements MUST be met here – the victim must be less than 12 years old, the victim can’t be married to the perpetrator, and the perpetrator has to be at least 24 months older than the victim. The other portions were italicized just to show how ridiculous Jobber was for posting that link. All of the men there were convicted of first degree statutory rape – which meant that their victims were UNDER the age of twelve. And unless these men were all no older than, say, 14 years old when they committed this crime – which is EXTREMELY improbable – then I’d wager that these weren’t just instances of two young people getting it on.

I have to, surprisingly, agree with NoCal here. Don't keep perpetuating this absurd little fantasy that Nader somehow cost Gore the election. Gore did that all by his own little lonesome. Edit - oh, and I forgot that Tyler is the one who thinks that voting for anyone other than Kerry is throwing one's vote away, despite the fact that Nader and the Green Party and insert any additionaly third parties here speak for millions of people who aren't enamored with either party and want an alternative. Good to see you support their disenfranchisement.

I live in the D.C. area, where you'd better either drink bottled water or have a filter, unless you don't mind all of the lead you get with ordinary tap water. Thanks again, WASA! Did Dasani really fail, though? I swear, I still see that shit in the stores.

All throughout page 2, I've been sitting here trying desperately to figure out how ANY sexual offense can be considered "minor".

Did you even bother to click on the link? It’s already been established that some of the ones they hired WERE convicted of assault & sexual offenses – which, of course, against the organization’s OWN POLICIES for not hiring anyone convicted of “violent or serious offenses”. So if one of these guys gets arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor – I doubt it was because he simply lit up a joint with them or offered them a bottle of hooch. And as for you, Jobber, you ask what do we do with these ex-cons? Well, if they’re ex-FELONS, I can tell you exactly what you DON’T do with them – you don’t send them into unsuspecting neighborhoods to go door to door. I mean, Christ….we have sexual offender registries whose sole purpose is to notify neighborhoods when sexual predators are moving into their community….and this ACT groups sends these same type of offenders DOOR to DOOR to drum up political support. Godallmighty. I don’t care how much one hates Bush, Soros can’t be THAT desperate to win in November.

Goddamnit, Mike, you insensitive bastard, THEY'D SERVED THEIR TIME.

What? You think President Bring-Em-On is afraid to write checks with his mouth that the troops can't cash? What the hell are you even babbling on about now? We've transferred power in Iraq without the insurgents doing something typically crazy like blowing up a building to stop it from happening. The transfer of power was done without some extremist killing a few dozen people in a symbolic strike against Iraq’s new sovereignty. That’s GOOD news. Can’t you just accept that for ONE minute? When the sixty seconds is up, you can go right back to betting in your Iraq leader death pool.