Pineguy wrote: It was more a vote against Bennet than for Buck. Bennet hasn't done anything and has never been elected to anything. If a Republican had been in his place with the same background of never having been elected, I would have voted against them, as well.
I don't think there was surprise at the vote for Tancredo, it was for the vote for Buck. Hope to see you Sunday at the breakfast.
My bag. I stand hung by my own petard. I did read every word of the the post in question, yet my brain papered over Buck and focused on Tancredo.
I guess this is a good illustration of how some threads spin out of control.
PrintSmith wrote: That's not what the transcript of the call tells us Scruffy. Maybe you need to look at the transcript instead of taking at face value what the scorched earth progressives are tossing out because they know Bennet can't hope to win the election standing on his record.
Ah, yes, the splitting of hairs begins. "Barely conscious" is the term used in the police report, is it not? Such a big difference (in case you cannot tell, that was sarcasm there.) It's still rape. Why are you defending this man, this admitted rapist?
I wonder, Mr. Smith, if you would be splitting these hairs if it were your daughter that was asking, 5 years later, why Mr. Buck would not prosecute a criminal that confessed to a crime?
And why she was intoxicated in bed with anyone who she was not having sex with............ I would do this because, until she accepts some responsibility for what happened to her in this situation - it could happen again.
daisypusher wrote: I would be asking my daughter why she answers the door with her top off.
That's a good question, but it still does not excuse rape. Regardless of her prior history with this man, or her behavior that night, it still does not give him the right to have sex with her while she is "barely conscious."
daisypusher wrote: I would be asking my daughter why she answers the door with her top off.
That's a good question, but it still does not excuse rape. Regardless of her prior history with this man, or her behavior that night, it still does not give him the right to have sex with her while she is "barely conscious."
That sounds like nice liberal tripe. I hold them both accountable and as such - just another lesson to be learned by both - not jail time. And I could not care less about Buck.
daisypusher wrote: I would be asking my daughter why she answers the door with her top off.
That's a good question, but it still does not excuse rape. Regardless of her prior history with this man, or her behavior that night, it still does not give him the right to have sex with her while she is "barely conscious."
That sounds like nice liberal tripe. I hold them both accountable and as such - just another lesson to be learned by both - not jail time. And I could not care less about Buck.
Oh, it's not tripe. Tripe is a fish.
Yes, they are both accountable if the sex is consensual, but once a person is unconscious, or close to it, how could they actually be consenting? To my mind, he took advantage of the situation and raped her.
I'm not going to assume this, since it is an ugly thing, so I will ask the question: Do you think "she was asking for it?"
Ah, the classic question and in this case a fallacy known as a false dilemma. If she is asking for it - then bad me - know one asks to be raped. It she is not - then no one deserves to be raped. If a guy answers the door in the nude, gets drunk and goes to be with the woman and she takes advantage of him - did he deserve to be raped (he did think he said no)?
