I remember a CSI (the original) wherein Cath's Ex was falsely accused of rape by some woman who wanted to extort him into giving her a record deal. He had sex with her, and then could not deliver. So, to "get even" she falsely accused him of rape.

At the end of the show Kath does her "tsk tsk" moment, and seems amused at the woman's naivte, but what you did NOT see: The woman being handcuffed and put in jail.

The kicker - the false accuser admitted that she had a friend who did exactly the same extortion to married men, by falsely accusing them of rape and then demanding money - did SHE get arrested? Hell no.

It's PC all the time on these shows.

Oh, one last critical point:

Ever notice that it is feminists (self-described no less) who deny deny deny false accusations happen, but they (like Kathryn) are the first ones to use them? She said that MRAs call for the beatings and rape of women - provides no proof, and just goes on from there.

It's not a wonder why feminists don't want false accusers punished .... they're the ones who often do it.

Steven

Informative post.

Wish I had time to write more - gotta work, lol.

Steven

Yea, but he was 42 (not in his 30's), and force WAS used. As were a drug.

I had not heard that he had bragged about sex with OTHER minors though.

Steven

Good God. Yea, like I want to step into THAT mess and hitch my wagon to her life.

NOT.

Actually, it's been since the 50's when the Supreme Court ruled in the separation of state and religion.

We took moral absolutes out. We took out all the basic moral codes. It was replaced by man's "wisdom" - the ability to argue anything as "having an equal point of view".

Personally, I agree with him.

Jesus Christ in a freaking cartoon,

This is a complete misapplication of the law.

Honestly, we seriously need some accountability in our prosecutor's offices. A few prison terms for some of them would straighten this mess out.

Steven

But, to add to the discussion – you notice what those in Washington, Wall Street, and those who have a ton of money NEVER advocate? A tax on ACCUMULATED wealth is never proposed. For instance the Kennedy clan has their wealth protected in trusts and corporations, and from what I hear it is incorporated in FIJI – purely for tax purposes.

If you want to tax “the rich” go after the ones who have accumulated wealth, not the ones PRODUCING wealth and jobs in this country. Doesn’t that make more sense?

Steven

Respectfully, have you ever RUN a business? And trust this – Barack Obama never has. All his time in the private sector was working as an attorney. That is real work, but it is not him owning a business, and being a lawyer is a niche that most people don’t work in. Lawyers, and yes we need them and I am not bashing them, leech off of society as to society’s needs. They produce NOTHING – their services are a byproduct of business, gov’t, law, civil and criminal cases. But they produce nothing.

“Pay their fair share”!? It sounds good until you actually LOOK at a ledger for a business and realize that the person who owns this business also assumes all the risk, has created jobs, must manage or fail to manage their business. Why do you want to punish success?

I’m not trying to blast you Jay, but I respectfully think that you have very little idea of the costs of running a business. You seem to see a shiny pot of gold, and not realize it took someone else’s sweat to produce it. You can only rob a businessman once, after that the well is dry.

(cont below)

Jay Black,
I think you are confusing the “rich” with the ultra wealthy. Many, if not most, such as those who make 200-500K are not simply banking a huge paycheck. Most have EMPLOYEES. They pay most of the taxes as is, did you know that? 40% of Americans don’t pay ANY federal taxes, with the exception of SS and FICA.

Most of those that make that kind of money own a business. And taking the tax, despite what the teleprompter-in-chief said, is not “a little off the top” – profit comes at the end – it’s why it’s called “the bottom line”. And it’s not just the taxes. Let’s say they have 36% taxes. Many times they also have state and local taxes – raising the rate above 50%. But let’s suppose a “best case scenario”. They also have to pay workman’s compensation insurance, insurance on the business itself, and possibly health benefits. Now that “rich guy” is paying 60-70% of his “profit”. Then, you have to pay WAGES. What is left over is not this huge pile of money.

(cont below)