I don't know how much they spent and I doubt that you do either. There is plenty of people out there that have sex problems. But make no mistake the Catholic sex scandal wasn't a government problem. It was done by a small number of people. But people like you insit on painting every religious person with the broad brush because of your bigotry.
the fact is, if you gave money to the Catholic Church, some of your money was used to protect people who were abusing children.
I didn't give any money to the Catholic Church. The money problem isn't anyone's concern except those that gave it and belong to the Church. The fact remains that bigots like you want to paint all Christians with this problem.
Girls can menstrate as young as 9 years old. O.K Mr. Natural law is that o.k ? Is it all those religious types that made that wrong, what a bummer huh ? You talk about natural law but you failed to mention social factors and the most important thing which is mental development and maturity. Go talk to an 11 year old girl who also happens to be menstrating. Physically she can get pregnant, does that mean it's o.k or should be acceptable for an 11 year old to have sex ? Does she have the mental capacity to do so ? Does she understand the ramifications ? She might, but she also might think it's love and it's probably not. Would it be pretty easy for a 40 year old to manipulate her ? Yes because by natural law she hasn't developed mentally enough to understand the consequences.
So stick with your natural law theory I mean heck, nature has given an 11 year old girl the motor skills to drive so give her a liscence then. She could do some jobs at age 11 because "nature" has given her the motor skills to do so, so we ought to let her work in a factory. Funny you talk about other cultures, I guess it's o.k that they do that too eh ? Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to have an opinion so why not let her vote ? Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to inhale and drink so should we make it legal for them to smoke and drink alchohol as well ? Who knows looking at your "laws of "nature" idea maybe you'd say so.
The fact is that nature gives CHILDREN the ability to do many things. The reason we don't allow any of the above is because as a general rule they can't handle the responsibility or can't reason enough yet to make informed decisions. There is also the factor of trying to protect those same immature people from predators or manipulative 40 year olds wanting to screw an 11 year old girl just because she had her first period. But hey, they do it in Sudan you ethnocentric, close minded person.
But the thing that makes this a non-issue with me, is actually two-fold: First, the Girl in question has made contradictory claims about this tryst with Polanski since the git-go, AND, because so much time has passed, why keep pursuing the man, 25-30 years after the deed, and in spite of the fact that he is married with a family, and has had no more such offensive dalliances?
Even if a 13 year old girl said it was o.k she probably did so because she was manipulated by an adult into believing it was love. So if a 13 or 14 year old say it was o.k it goes back to the adult because kids can easily be manipulated by a predatorial adult. So she very well might have said it was o.k.
Why keep pursiung him ? I don't think anyone is other than merely saying he's a creep and refusing to spend money on his movies. He's not in jail nor under investigation. Would you let it go so easily if he had sex with your daughter at 13 ? Knowing you he'd be having a "dirt nap :)" He would with me as well.
As far as The other things that stars do and there's some freaks out there no doubt. I don't look at as harshly if it's between consenting ADULTS not 13 year olds. If some Hollywood nutjob gets off on having someone piss all over him, go right ahead, I think it's f**ked up but if they are adults who consented I don't care.
Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to inhale and drink so should we make it legal for them to smoke and drink alchohol as well ?
age discrimination is the last taboo
You know, I once worked at a video store. I 15 year old kid came in and wanted to rent a video. He was attending college. Great kid.
But I couldn't rent him a video because he was too young.
The guy was more emotionally and intellecually advanced than I was and yet I had to discriminate against him becasue of a number.
People aren't numbers.
Experience doesn't always conform to the clock.
Do I personally think an 11 year old girl should have sex...no, I don't. Does nature? Nature has one very specific goal, life...and reproduction is essential to that goal.
My personal ethics and nature are not the same thing.
But I'm not stupid enough to think that my ethics are nature's way.
"Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to inhale and drink so should we make it legal for them to smoke and drink alchohol as well ?"
age discrimination is the last taboo
Yes, it's so discriminitory to not legally allow 12 year olds to rent porn and drive cars and screw 40 year old guys.
You know, I once worked at a video store. I 15 year old kid came in and wanted to rent a video. He was attending college. Great kid.
But I couldn't rent him a video because he was too young.
The guy was more emotionally and intellecually advanced than I was and yet I had to discriminate against him becasue of a number.
People aren't numbers.
Of course theirs acceptions to every rule, there's 40 year olds who are still acting like kids. So what do you propose ? Someone down at the DMV having a chat with a 12 year old and saying " Well this one gets his liscence because he's really smart and seems really mature, Heck he's going to college early, but man, that kid in line before him though needs to grow up a bit so I didn't approve his liscence."
Should we have then someone to decide who passes a litmus test for each individual ?
Experience doesn't always conform to the clock.
Not always but there has to be a standard and a general rule. Otherwise it becomes discrinintory of we let one child do what others cannot.
You say you only commented on the laws of nature and not societal aspects. B.S See anyone of your last 30 posts on the issue and they all refereence the societal aspect of it. You told me to argue wiht nature and not you, I'm not arguing with natural law, it's there and it can't be changed. What you fail miserebly to see is that it's how a society interacts with natural law to benefit society and the individual.
I want to paint the Catholic Church with it because they did it...and did it...and did it some more. You want to paint everyone with any affiliation with christianity with it. It doesn't matter to you that a small number of people actually committed the acts.
It's the ugly truth and it's an ugliness that religion didn't prevent. Religion can't prevent everything. Neither can government.
I know some 13 year olds who are a lot more ADULT than some of the people posting on these boards.
You're corrrect, but there has to be a standard. Appearantly you feel that we're just too harsh in making judgement on what age is proper. There has to be standards and rules in any society, saying it's not up for you to decide would be a cop out or mean you can't have an opinion on any topic. You obviously do.
For some reason you trot out the fact that "nature" will allow an 11 or 12 year old to get pregnant or menstrate. Nobody is arguing that. Why you are is beyond me. You're looking for someone to disagree with you that nature allows a 12 year old to menstrate. I haven't seen anyone say that she can't. You've spen alot of time and effort on the subject. I'm done discussing the topic it's wrong it's sick and anyone who would defend it should get some counseling.
Well age seems to be the main difference between a born child and an unborn child.
the main difference is the umbilical cord.
So what do you propose ? Someone down at the DMV having a chat with a 12 year old and saying " Well this one gets his liscence because he's really smart and seems really mature, Heck he's going to college early, but man, that kid in line before him though needs to grow up a bit so I didn't approve his liscence."
so, it's a matter of discrimination for convienence.
yes, I think that if you are old enough to prove you can accept the responsibility, you are old enough to accept the responsibility.
Yes, it's so discriminitory to not legally allow 12 year olds to rent porn and drive cars and screw 40 year old guys.
yea, it is, actually.
look, one one had I got someone here who wants to give a fetus the rights of a person and on the other we got someone who doesn't want to give a responsible teen the rights of an adult.
the only people who should be able to tell a child what they can and cannot do that ADULTS can do is their parents.
Why should I be able to discriminate against another person based on an arbitrary number on the clock?
You want to paint everyone with any affiliation with christianity with it. It doesn't matter to you that a small number of people actually committed the acts.
no I don't.
and it takes more than a "small number of people" to raise millions of dollars. Now I realize that many of those people were unaware that their money was used to cover up these crimes (even from themselves) and that is unfortunate.
But once it became known that this was the case, anyone who did not reject and hold responsible the organization who was dong this becomes complicant in the crime as well.
Yes, it's so discriminitory to not legally allow 12 year olds to rent porn and drive cars and screw 40 year old guys. yea, it is, actually. Â Â
It is discriminatory and rightfully so.
look, one one had I got someone here who wants to give a fetus the rights of a person and on the other we got someone who doesn't want to give a responsible teen the rights of an adult. The only right I am concerned with is the right to life. You are either incapable of getting the points presented or you are intentionally misconstuing them.
the only people who should be able to tell a child what they can and cannot do that ADULTS can do is their parents. If you belive this you are wacked out.
do you want someone else telling YOU how to raise your child? People do everyday. And so does the government.
do you want someone else telling YOU how to raise your child?
Apparently then there's no distinction for you. There are laws imposed on adults too. So if the parents decide to let there 12 year old drink, drive, have sex, stay out all night do you think the child would be endangered at all ?
because that's what age laws do.
So I assume if your kids are mature you'll let them drive, drink, have sex, stay out all night. I'm sure they'll be fine upstanding adults.
look, one one had I got someone here who wants to give a fetus the rights of a person and on the other we got someone who doesn't want to give a responsible teen the rights of an adult.
There's a difference between allowing a person to exist vs. giving them full rights.
the only people who should be able to tell a child what they can and cannot do that ADULTS can do is their parents.
How about orphans ?
So if a parent decides to let their kid drive it's o.k with you ? Hope you enjoy riding on those roads with 12 year olds at the wheel.
I think it's also about protecting these children. A 12 year old most likely doesn't have the mental capacity to make an informed choice on to have sex, using proper birth control, etc. Then add into it a grown adult? That adult has more experience and more world-knowledge to use against the child. There are guys who will want to have sex with 12 year olds unfortunately. They will use many different means necessary to get what they want. Sweet-talk the child, seduce them, bribe them. Even threaten them. A 12 year old isn't going to be fully developed. A man will be physically imposing to them. Are they supposed to say no? How do they say no? And what happens if this 12 year old does have sex and they get pregnant? Do we really want a society with a lot of 12 year olds having sex? I think if you say it's okay for 40 year old men to have sex with 12 year olds, that some of the 12 year olds are going to take that as a sign that it's okay to have sex. If two 12 year olds are having sex, the chances of them properly using birth control isn't likely to be high. So that leads to more births. Children having children. I don't think we want that in our society. We want to protect our children.
Yea and driving is a privelege. Having the right to life is a Right and the most basic of all human rights.
let me put it this way...I know some 12 year olds who I'd feel a lot more comfortable sharing the road with than, say...bodine there.
I'm sure you know plenty of 12 year olds.
So we should let you decide who is mature enough and who isn't ? Should we just allow all 12 year olds to drive since it's age discrimination ?
See there are these little things called laws, remember, "we the people" and we've decided in most states that 16 is the age you can drive at, we've decided you can vote at 18, we've decided at 21 you can drink. There are laws for adults too. Don't like the law ? Fine go work to change it, go protest, go write your representatives, start a petetion and if enough people think we ought ot let 12 year olds drink, drive and screw 40 year olds then I'm sure we'd be so much better off as a society.
let me put it this way...I know some 12 year olds who I'd feel a lot more comfortable sharing the road with than, say...bodine there.
You, of course, no nothing of my driving habits. If you think you are more secure sharing the road with 12 years olds, you are even more of a moron than I first thought.
I think you have no clue about my judgment. But then I thought liberals weren't supposed to be judgmental themselves? Apparently it only applies to liberal ideas because you are certainly passing judgement on me. Now tell me what exactly is my "lack of good judgement?" Is it simply because I disagree with you?
At this point, we don't even know why this young girl was friendly with Nicholson or Polanski, why she allowed herself to be placed into a position to BE taken advantage of nor do we know the circumstances of the tryst,
She allowed herself to be taken advantage of? Dear God, she's 13!
A little off topic but certainly related: Common Sense Conservative gets credit for this:
If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, read this rebuttal that appeared in the Sunday, March 4, Chicago Tribune. By the way, the ratios are roughly accurate:
10% of the taxpayers pay about 60% of the taxes collected,
30% pay 37%, and
60% collectively pay only 4%.
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive; they owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register to pay the bill.
The first four men paid nothing at all.
The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1.
The sixth man, feeling a little put out, paid $3.
The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively.
The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59; He realized he was paying for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men. The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free.
The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either.
The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3, and paid only $2.
The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5.
The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12.
The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before.
This left the last man with a bill of $52, $7 less than before. Outside of
the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts
erupted. The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1. Out of the $20 in cost reduction, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in: "Yeah! I only saved $1. too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?" The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost; where is our share?" The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner.
But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
I don't know how much they spent and I doubt that you do either. There is plenty of people out there that have sex problems. But make no mistake the Catholic sex scandal wasn't a government problem. It was done by a small number of people. But people like you insit on painting every religious person with the broad brush because of your bigotry.
well...they have already admitted to spending millions and millions of dollars
if you think the sexual abuse of it's citizens children isn't a government problem, then I have to wonder about you.
Laws were broken. The breaking of laws were covered up, which itself is against the law.
not the government's problem?
nonsense.
the fact is, if you gave money to the Catholic Church, some of your money was used to protect people who were abusing children.
now you can pretend that isn't the deal...but that's the deal
if you think the sexual abuse of it's citizens children isn't a government problem, then I have to wonder about you.
The point was the government didn't cause it, nitwit.
the fact is, if you gave money to the Catholic Church, some of your money was used to protect people who were abusing children.
I didn't give any money to the Catholic Church. The money problem isn't anyone's concern except those that gave it and belong to the Church. The fact remains that bigots like you want to paint all Christians with this problem.
and what point does that make?
the government didn't cause it because, fortunately, we keep the church out of the government.
child abuse is everyone's problem, not just christians.
I want to paint the Catholic Church with it because they did it...and did it...and did it some more.
It's the ugly truth and it's an ugliness that religion didn't prevent.
Crabgrass,
Girls can menstrate as young as 9 years old. O.K Mr. Natural law is that o.k ? Is it all those religious types that made that wrong, what a bummer huh ? You talk about natural law but you failed to mention social factors and the most important thing which is mental development and maturity. Go talk to an 11 year old girl who also happens to be menstrating. Physically she can get pregnant, does that mean it's o.k or should be acceptable for an 11 year old to have sex ? Does she have the mental capacity to do so ? Does she understand the ramifications ? She might, but she also might think it's love and it's probably not. Would it be pretty easy for a 40 year old to manipulate her ? Yes because by natural law she hasn't developed mentally enough to understand the consequences.
So stick with your natural law theory I mean heck, nature has given an 11 year old girl the motor skills to drive so give her a liscence then. She could do some jobs at age 11 because "nature" has given her the motor skills to do so, so we ought to let her work in a factory. Funny you talk about other cultures, I guess it's o.k that they do that too eh ? Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to have an opinion so why not let her vote ? Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to inhale and drink so should we make it legal for them to smoke and drink alchohol as well ? Who knows looking at your "laws of "nature" idea maybe you'd say so.
The fact is that nature gives CHILDREN the ability to do many things. The reason we don't allow any of the above is because as a general rule they can't handle the responsibility or can't reason enough yet to make informed decisions. There is also the factor of trying to protect those same immature people from predators or manipulative 40 year olds wanting to screw an 11 year old girl just because she had her first period. But hey, they do it in Sudan you ethnocentric, close minded person.
a girl that young is probably not physically in a very good position to bear a child.
look, argue with nature, not me.
there is a reason people have sex.
deny it all you want
it's not going to change nature.
you want to talk about socail idea and I'm simply talking about biology.
if you want to talk about social issues, fine, go ahead.
but don't call my stating biological fact as somehow stating social considerations.
I haven't said anything about social consideration, please don't imply that I have.
Bill,
Even if a 13 year old girl said it was o.k she probably did so because she was manipulated by an adult into believing it was love. So if a 13 or 14 year old say it was o.k it goes back to the adult because kids can easily be manipulated by a predatorial adult. So she very well might have said it was o.k.
Why keep pursiung him ? I don't think anyone is other than merely saying he's a creep and refusing to spend money on his movies. He's not in jail nor under investigation. Would you let it go so easily if he had sex with your daughter at 13 ? Knowing you he'd be having a "dirt nap :)" He would with me as well.
As far as The other things that stars do and there's some freaks out there no doubt. I don't look at as harshly if it's between consenting ADULTS not 13 year olds. If some Hollywood nutjob gets off on having someone piss all over him, go right ahead, I think it's f**ked up but if they are adults who consented I don't care.
age discrimination is the last taboo
You know, I once worked at a video store. I 15 year old kid came in and wanted to rent a video. He was attending college. Great kid.
But I couldn't rent him a video because he was too young.
The guy was more emotionally and intellecually advanced than I was and yet I had to discriminate against him becasue of a number.
People aren't numbers.
Experience doesn't always conform to the clock.
Do I personally think an 11 year old girl should have sex...no, I don't. Does nature? Nature has one very specific goal, life...and reproduction is essential to that goal.
My personal ethics and nature are not the same thing.
But I'm not stupid enough to think that my ethics are nature's way.
I know some 13 year olds who are a lot more ADULT than some of the people posting on these boards.
What on earth makes you think that the clock determines adulthood?
Age discrimiantion is the last taboo, crabs? Well age seems to be the main difference between a born child and an unborn child.
"Nature gives an 11 year old the ability to inhale and drink so should we make it legal for them to smoke and drink alchohol as well ?"
Yes, it's so discriminitory to not legally allow 12 year olds to rent porn and drive cars and screw 40 year old guys.
Of course theirs acceptions to every rule, there's 40 year olds who are still acting like kids. So what do you propose ? Someone down at the DMV having a chat with a 12 year old and saying " Well this one gets his liscence because he's really smart and seems really mature, Heck he's going to college early, but man, that kid in line before him though needs to grow up a bit so I didn't approve his liscence."
Should we have then someone to decide who passes a litmus test for each individual ?
Not always but there has to be a standard and a general rule. Otherwise it becomes discrinintory of we let one child do what others cannot.
You say you only commented on the laws of nature and not societal aspects. B.S See anyone of your last 30 posts on the issue and they all refereence the societal aspect of it. You told me to argue wiht nature and not you, I'm not arguing with natural law, it's there and it can't be changed. What you fail miserebly to see is that it's how a society interacts with natural law to benefit society and the individual.
I want to paint the Catholic Church with it because they did it...and did it...and did it some more. You want to paint everyone with any affiliation with christianity with it. It doesn't matter to you that a small number of people actually committed the acts.
It's the ugly truth and it's an ugliness that religion didn't prevent. Religion can't prevent everything. Neither can government.
You're corrrect, but there has to be a standard. Appearantly you feel that we're just too harsh in making judgement on what age is proper. There has to be standards and rules in any society, saying it's not up for you to decide would be a cop out or mean you can't have an opinion on any topic. You obviously do.
For some reason you trot out the fact that "nature" will allow an 11 or 12 year old to get pregnant or menstrate. Nobody is arguing that. Why you are is beyond me. You're looking for someone to disagree with you that nature allows a 12 year old to menstrate. I haven't seen anyone say that she can't. You've spen alot of time and effort on the subject. I'm done discussing the topic it's wrong it's sick and anyone who would defend it should get some counseling.
the main difference is the umbilical cord.
so, it's a matter of discrimination for convienence.
yes, I think that if you are old enough to prove you can accept the responsibility, you are old enough to accept the responsibility.
yea, it is, actually.
look, one one had I got someone here who wants to give a fetus the rights of a person and on the other we got someone who doesn't want to give a responsible teen the rights of an adult.
the only people who should be able to tell a child what they can and cannot do that ADULTS can do is their parents.
Why should I be able to discriminate against another person based on an arbitrary number on the clock?
and that standard should be the parents.
do you want someone else telling YOU how to raise your child?
because that's what age laws do.
Well hell, lets just throw all the age laws out and give the toddlers some beer and porn during nap time! God Bless America!
no I don't.
and it takes more than a "small number of people" to raise millions of dollars. Now I realize that many of those people were unaware that their money was used to cover up these crimes (even from themselves) and that is unfortunate.
But once it became known that this was the case, anyone who did not reject and hold responsible the organization who was dong this becomes complicant in the crime as well.
toddlers don't want beer and porn.
toddlers don't want beer and porn
How do they know if they have never tried it? We can introduce it to them young and call it "cultural" education.
It is discriminatory and rightfully so.
look, one one had I got someone here who wants to give a fetus the rights of a person and on the other we got someone who doesn't want to give a responsible teen the rights of an adult. The only right I am concerned with is the right to life. You are either incapable of getting the points presented or you are intentionally misconstuing them.
the only people who should be able to tell a child what they can and cannot do that ADULTS can do is their parents. If you belive this you are wacked out.
do you want someone else telling YOU how to raise your child? People do everyday. And so does the government.
if they are your kids, do whatever you like.
so, you think that I should be able to tell your children what they can and cannot do?
Apparently then there's no distinction for you. There are laws imposed on adults too. So if the parents decide to let there 12 year old drink, drive, have sex, stay out all night do you think the child would be endangered at all ?
So I assume if your kids are mature you'll let them drive, drink, have sex, stay out all night. I'm sure they'll be fine upstanding adults.
There's a difference between allowing a person to exist vs. giving them full rights.
How about orphans ?
So if a parent decides to let their kid drive it's o.k with you ? Hope you enjoy riding on those roads with 12 year olds at the wheel.
"allowed" isn't a right, it's a priviledge
a "right" isn't given, it's assumed
let me put it this way...I know some 12 year olds who I'd feel a lot more comfortable sharing the road with than, say...bodine there.
I think it's also about protecting these children. A 12 year old most likely doesn't have the mental capacity to make an informed choice on to have sex, using proper birth control, etc. Then add into it a grown adult? That adult has more experience and more world-knowledge to use against the child. There are guys who will want to have sex with 12 year olds unfortunately. They will use many different means necessary to get what they want. Sweet-talk the child, seduce them, bribe them. Even threaten them. A 12 year old isn't going to be fully developed. A man will be physically imposing to them. Are they supposed to say no? How do they say no? And what happens if this 12 year old does have sex and they get pregnant? Do we really want a society with a lot of 12 year olds having sex? I think if you say it's okay for 40 year old men to have sex with 12 year olds, that some of the 12 year olds are going to take that as a sign that it's okay to have sex. If two 12 year olds are having sex, the chances of them properly using birth control isn't likely to be high. So that leads to more births. Children having children. I don't think we want that in our society. We want to protect our children.
Yea and driving is a privelege. Having the right to life is a Right and the most basic of all human rights.
I'm sure you know plenty of 12 year olds.
So we should let you decide who is mature enough and who isn't ? Should we just allow all 12 year olds to drive since it's age discrimination ?
See there are these little things called laws, remember, "we the people" and we've decided in most states that 16 is the age you can drive at, we've decided you can vote at 18, we've decided at 21 you can drink. There are laws for adults too. Don't like the law ? Fine go work to change it, go protest, go write your representatives, start a petetion and if enough people think we ought ot let 12 year olds drink, drive and screw 40 year olds then I'm sure we'd be so much better off as a society.
let me put it this way...I know some 12 year olds who I'd feel a lot more comfortable sharing the road with than, say...bodine there.
You, of course, no nothing of my driving habits. If you think you are more secure sharing the road with 12 years olds, you are even more of a moron than I first thought.
no, but I am getting a pretty good idea about your lack of good judgement.
I think you have no clue about my judgment. But then I thought liberals weren't supposed to be judgmental themselves? Apparently it only applies to liberal ideas because you are certainly passing judgement on me. Now tell me what exactly is my "lack of good judgement?" Is it simply because I disagree with you?
I have no evidence that you are thinking at all.
Then you are not paying attention or simply don't know what thinking is.
wel...the name-calling makes it hard to take you seriously
The name calling may distract you but that is probably because you need to work on your ability to focus.
this is an example of morality and integrity.
why Catholics aren't abandoning not their faith, but this institution, in droves is beyond me.
in the secular world, a lot of these same people would probably want to kill the perpetrators
the other thing Bush's plan has is an elimination of taxes on stock dividends...now who would benifit most from that?
know many poor people with a stock portfolio?
know many middle class people with substantial stock dividend income?
know any rich people without an extensive stock portfolio and dividend income?
It's time for the Republicans to pay the band.
At this point, we don't even know why this young girl was friendly with Nicholson or Polanski, why she allowed herself to be placed into a position to BE taken advantage of nor do we know the circumstances of the tryst,
She allowed herself to be taken advantage of? Dear God, she's 13!
Double post
Yeah, those evil rich people.
A little off topic but certainly related: Common Sense Conservative gets credit for this:
If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, read this rebuttal that appeared in the Sunday, March 4, Chicago Tribune. By the way, the ratios are roughly accurate:
10% of the taxpayers pay about 60% of the taxes collected,
30% pay 37%, and
60% collectively pay only 4%.
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive; they owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register to pay the bill.
The first four men paid nothing at all.
The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1.
The sixth man, feeling a little put out, paid $3.
The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively.
The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59; He realized he was paying for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men. The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free.
The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either.
The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3, and paid only $2.
The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5.
The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12.
The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before.
This left the last man with a bill of $52, $7 less than before. Outside of
the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts
erupted. The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1. Out of the $20 in cost reduction, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in: "Yeah! I only saved $1. too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?" The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost; where is our share?" The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner.
But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
of course, with the Bush plan, the restaurant buys the guy with the most money's dinner for him.
Nice try but no cigar.
oh yea...I had that backwards...the guy with the most money just buys the restaurant and tells the manager what to serve and to whom.
why Catholics aren't abandoning not their faith, but this institution, in droves is beyond me.
As, it appears, are most things.
...why Catholics aren't abandoning not their faith, but this institution, in droves is beyond me."
There's no reason to do so.
Matter of fact, more of a reason to stay.
to support the covering up of sexual abuse?
who is supporting the cover-up, crabs?
everyone who give money to the church...if they know it or not