Bush is a crook.
 

Well, kinda.

I'm only posting this so several someones will tell me how this is perfectly legal.

Can this nigger say anything other than "I believe"? It's not protected religious expression, nor is it sidestepping lying in the most obvious manner possible, when you use it in this manner sir.

This boy is off his head.

I mean for real. Is he related to Bub Rubb and Lil' Sis or something.

What about drink driving? Can he do that?

Isn't it more likely that they will tell you that if it's necessary for national security, and the War against Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here>, then it's perfectly justified, and that since you oppose these measures, you must be in favour of Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here> not to mention that you hate America.

That was an ugly run-on sentance.

I just can't muster that much outrage. As I said in another thread, by doing this Bush is underminding people's faith in the system and pressing forth with a libertarian agenda. Can't say I think that's a bad thing.

But I'm not expecting Republicans or Democrats to like that. Plus, Bush hasn't been very good for business.

The executive branch gets away with a lot. Especially during times of war.

I know this one Republican president who suspended habeas corpus, and killed 400,000 or so Americans in a war. He also locked up anybody who said anything bad about him in the press. Think his name was Lincoln.

Also, a democrat president I heard about locked people up in concentration camps... oops I mean 'internment camps' for just being of Japanese descent.

Yet another democrat president lied about a certain incident and started a long war in some asian country called Vietnam.

Really, is what Bush doing that shocking? Those were just a few examples. He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals. He started a war, and lied about it. But plenty of presidents who have started wars have done that. So he has some innocent Iraqi's blood on his hands. So does Clinton. In fact Clinton has even more Iraqi blood on his hands thanks to UN sanctions on medicine. So we tortured some people... yeah, like that hasn't happened before?

Of course the US has a very ugly history. The thing is, when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to concentration camps, suspended habeus corpus, or got our troops stuck in a useless war over in Vietnam, it's universally agreed that our former presidents fucked up. It happens. Every country has had bad leaders and done stupid things.

It's shocking now because when people make mistakes, you're supposed to learn from those mistakes so that you don't make them again. And Bush is showing a staggering lack of hindsight when it comes to the blunders of his prececessors. If this was the first time any of this were happening, it would be awful but it'd be a learning experience. There's no excuse for it now, when the country has screwed up like that before and should know better.

There were Americans and British citizens at Gitmo too.

Only a complete ignorance of American history could allow these actions to repeat themselves. Maybe just a general apathy for said events?

You're making a huge assumption assuming that the Bush Administration is lacking the ability of foresight. Everything from the war in Iraq, to the war drums beating over Iran screams of foresight. Maybe you just think it's an odd coincidence that Bush is starting to sound like Jimmy Carter three years after Iraq when energy prices are rising? Another coincidence being that the Republicans could possible use the Iran war drums a'beatin' to discredit the Democrats in the coming elections when no attack materializes?

I don't believe in coincidences. While I don't believe what the Bush Administration is doing is entirely sane, I can't believe they don't have reasons for doing what they are. We just don't know about them.

Hate stating the obvious, but we don't live in an ideal world. Back to Bush.

The NSA domestic spying, the Valerie Plame affair and more. All of which could have come out before the last presidential election. This leads to me to believe that Bush is nothing more then a scapegoat. For what? Who knows.

British citizens falls under the foreign nationals category. Also, I don't think any American detained at Gitmo was anything but an enemy combatant. So they forfeit their right to their citizenship. Not like Michael Moore is taking a vacation at Gitmo! Harhar! :)

But without Habeus Corpus, how exactly can we determine whether that claim is valid? Isn't that essentially giving the Government a blank check to arrest whoever you want? "Wait, I get a lawyer!" "No, you're an enemy combatant!" "Says Who?" "King George of course."

That's legal grey area that the Bush Administration is using to dodge the issue. The constitution doesn't cover American citizens captured and held outside of American territory. Plus, American citizens found to be in combat operations against American forces captured on foreign soil not acting as a proxy on behalf of a nation-state has no legal precedance to my knowledge.

While it might be a very idealistic notion, I still believe that we generally deserve the kind of administration we're willing to accept and obey in the long run. The American people could have kicked Bush out of office in the 2004 election and since then there have been numerous scandals, some of which just screamed "impeache him!". Yet nothing significant happened so far and the only conclusion I can draw from this fact is that the general public just isn't off bad enough yet. Probably a lot more GIs have to die in foreign countries and more civil rights and laws have to be undermined at home, all for the abstract concept of protecting a country's interests.

The slogan, "at least we live in interesting times" just doesen't cover such pitiful developments anymore.

While what Bush does can be considered illegal, y'all act like he's the incarnation of evil and the only president to do such things. We only have to go back to Bill Clinton for alot of the exact same issues

"The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton contains 15 essays by scholars, lawyers, lawmakers and cultural critics that chronicle Clinton's utter disregard for "a nation of laws, not of men."

University of Virginia Law Professor Lillian R. BeVier opens the book with a scholarly essay defining the rule of law and explaining why it is so important as a constraint on "the conduct of both individual citizens and those who govern them."

Senator Fred Thompson examines China's illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign and the abject refusal of Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the matter, concluding that "there can be no clearer example of the undermining of the rule of law."

ACLU President Nadine Strossen condemns, among other things, Clinton's actions to restrict habeas corpus, his attempts to censor the Internet, and his efforts to create databases on all Americans. Clinton has worked closely with the Republican Congress to undermine the rule of law, she says, but "the Clinton administration bears the brunt of the blame for all those devastating assaults on cherished constitutional rights."

Roger Pilon looks at Clinton's disdain for constitutionally limited government. Repeatedly, Clinton acted "as if the Constitution were an empty vessel to be filled with his policies and programs." In a similar vein, former Assistant Attorney General Douglas W. Kmiec examines Clinton's efforts to promote his policies through executive orders, "often without any citation of statutory authority, thereby bypassing legislative procedure."

Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Project for Criminal Justice, notes that "Clinton has exhibited contempt for the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold," as evidenced by his support for warrantless searches of public housing units, warrantless drug testing in public schools, a weakening of the right to trial by jury, and expanded property forfeiture. Clinton's record on economic liberties is no better. James Wootton, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, examines the administration's resistance to compensation for "regulatory takings" of private property. But when the federal government does have power to override state tort law that frustrates interstate commerce, Wootton says, Clinton refuses to use it.

Cato Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert A. Levy and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor focus their attention on the illegitimate wars on tobacco and guns, respectively. Both wars undermine centuries-old common law principles. Former White House Legal Counsel C. Boyden Gray looks at the administration's war on Microsoft, which "represents nothing more than a successful hijacking of the government's regulatory power by Microsoft's competitors -- an especially grievous abuse of the rule of law."

Former Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson chronicles how Clinton and Reno have thoroughly politicized the Justice Department. Berkeley Law Professor John C. Yoo discusses the imperial president abroad, showing how Clinton has abused constitutional restraints on his foreign power while ceding the authority of the federal government itself to international institutions.

Finally, the book examines how and why the institutions one would normally expect to be defending the rule of law have failed. Former Justice Department attorney Daniel E. Troy, Illinois Law Professor and Cato Visiting Scholar in Constitutional Studies Ronald D. Rotunda, and author David Horowitz look, respectively, at the political parties, the bar and the legal academy, and the media and the cultural institutions, each of which not only failed but was often complicit in undermining the rule of law. "

So don't get your panties all in a wad. Bush will be gone in due time and you can have a pure as the driven snow liberal to replace him. I'm sure the next guy won't even think to engage in such activities.

That makes it right because...?

I'm quite familiar with modern history, thank you. I'm aware of all of those examples, and the circumstances under which those decisions were taken. What I'm not aware of, though, is the part where Lincoln. Roosevelt and Kennedy had been absolved of all blame for their actions. I'm not saying it's entirely fair to blame them for actions which they felt they had no choice but to take, but I don't agree that what they did is all fine and dandy. I also don't think that you can excuse Bush by saying that America has had presidents who did bad things in the past.

He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals.

The whole of your case seems to be that if other people did bad things while in the White House, then that would entitle George W. Bush to do bad things too. I'm not buying it.

In so far as that is the case, that was wrong too. Democrat candidates can often be as bad as Republicans, is that what you wanted someone to admit? If so, consider it admitted. That doesn't change the fact that it must be stopped, no matter what party the current President represents. It's the issue that concerns me, not George W. Bush.

You might ask why it concerns me, if you glance at my flag. The reason is that these same issues are affecting the country in which I live. I can't help but feel that if the American people manage to win any kind of a victory in these matters, then that's something to give me hope too.

http://www.wethepeople.gov/heroes/holzerlecture.html
http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildu...sch/roosevelt/

Just a few examples.
In reality, they are not absolved of their faults... but no one devotes all of their time on them, like people have been doing with Bush.
Nor do people call them crooks, thieves, swindlers, war criminals, etc.

I don't have to assume. All I have to do is point at the current state of Iraq. You pretty much have to be snorting whole poppy seeds to have any illusions that any sort of foresight went into that invasion.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Of course they had reasons for all the dumb stunts they've pulled. I was saying that, had Rumsfeld, Bush, and company taken more than a cursory look at Korea and Vietnam, they would have realized that an invasion probably wasn't such a good idea. Hell, if Bush had listened to his dad, he would have realized that.

Ideal world, no. That makes it okay?

As for the NSA and security leaks, my theory? The Democrats are incompetent fuck-ups. Yes, they could have raked Bush over the coals for this back in 2004, but they didn't. Kerry didn't even put up a defense against the Swift Boat Veterans. They're just now getting around to it because elections are coming, and they need something to fight back with.

...I hope your argument wasn't just "Clinton did it too, so that makes it okay!" Your current avatar is painfully appropriate if that's the case.

Also, excerpt was terribly vague about what precisely Clinton actually DID.

Perhaps because those presidents managed to accomplish things of worth as well as the things for which they are not so well remembered. If George W. Bush had been the one to sign the emancipation proclamation, then I think I'd be a little more inclined to think well of him. That takes care of just one thing that Lincoln did to counterbalance his less pleasant acts. FDR led the country though WWII, and I know you don't need me to explain why that was different to the Iraq war. I'm not even entirely sure what to name as the example in the case of JFK. That's not because there's nothing to bring up, of course. It's because I'm not sure which of his many positive moves was the most prominent.

I'm genuinely curious. What exactly is the legacy of the Bush adminstration which will serve to counterbalance all of his wrongs? What would you put out there and say that it's the good he did in his time as president?

We won't know that until after the fact, now, won't we?

I am sure there was a large quantity of the population who were totally against the emancipation proclamation.
There were also a great deal of people who despised the way in which FDR dealt with many problems, and actually, that hasn't changed much. People still criticize him. But the overall view is that he did well.
Kennedy... well... I'm not sure exactly what he did aside from being known for pushing civil rights a bit.

I'm not prepared to have an extensive debate on the topic. I just think that calling Bush a crook right now is premature legacy fabrication and pointless mudslinging.

When did I ever say it was right? I'm not trying to rationalize anything for anybody. I can leave that to those who have politically motivated agendas.

History has been quite forgiving to all of them don't you think? Very little of their negative actions have been mentioned or just glossed over in most history books. With a very few notable exceptions. Certainly not the version of history most people learn in school.

You're contradicting yourself. By saying this, and then saying it's not okay for Bush to do what he's done you're holding people who have held this particular office to differing standards. What if the Bush or his Administration thinks that he/they have no choice in doing what they've done?

Yet another contradiction. Democrat presidents can be as bad as Republican presidents. Yet, you assume Britain will somehow be better off with a Democrat President?

Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are just as committed to Iraq and our current foreign policy as the Republicans are. Especially when it comes to issues like Iraq. Kerry didn't sound all that different from Bush during the 2004 presidential election. He just said that Bush did Iraq all wrong and he would have done it differently. Only now has he started to call for withdrawls. Guess he has to throw the anti-war crowd and world another carrot eh?

You're assuming that things like the current state of Iraq is not going according to plan, or not part of a back up plan. Maybe some planner in the Pentagon thought it'd be easier to control Iraq by breaking it up.

No. It should just put things into prespective.

About the planning issue:
What do you reckon is more probable, that efforts like the Iraq war are the result of a large, more or less coordinated scheme or of about as many different agendas as people involved? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.

Regarding other president's being as bad or worse than Bush, I think that this condemnation of the man is more of being fed up with the President doing this kind of thing attitude than aggression towards Bush himself. It's the forefront of decades of this kind of thing.

I gave my own opinions. History has been kind to them because their postitive actions have been found to outweigh their negative actions. That doesn't make certain actions that they took any less improper, and nor should it. If I believed that George W. Bush had accomplished sufficient good to outweigh his negative impact on America and on the world, then I wouldn't criticise his presidency either.

I admit that I did not make myself entirely clear, but I believe that I can clarify my view in such a way that you would not view it as a contradiction. I don't think that it's entirely fair to condemn any President of the United States for the actions that he felt needed to be taken. It's only fair to take into account the fact that the likelyhood is that he was only doing what he thought was right. On the other hand, even if those decisions were made with the best of intentions, it still does not automatically make the results a good thing either for America, or for the world.

The likelyhood is that Bush believes he is doing what needs to be done, but that will not stop his presidency from being judged on the basis of his results. That's really the most valid basis, in my mind, on which to judge a US President, and on that basis, I'd suggest that his results are going to prove to be substantially worse than any of the four former presidents we have discussed in this thread. I think you'll find that this is less contradictory, even if you don't agree with me.

Where did I state this? I believe that Britain and the rest of the world will be better off with a president other than George W. Bush, but I don't believe that a Republican president is automatically worse than a Democrat. I am not one of the blinkered ideologues who belies that all Republicans are ineffectual and evil.

For what it's worth, I'd have to say that if I were an American, I would not have voted Kerry. His campaign failed to appeal to me on any level. I'm really not one of those who believes that you pick a colour and vote accordingly for the rest of your adult life. I think that the Democrats are in an appalling state, and I don't really imagine that they will be able to field a winning candidate at the next election. Just because I locate myself somewhat left of centre on the standard (and inadequate) political spectrum does not mean that I'm inclined to believe that the Democrats can do no wrong. I have been well-educated in that regard by the shambolic debacle that has been British politics since about 1992.

I trust you understand my position better as a result of this post. I don't believe there's anything inherently contradictory about what I've said here, although I'm certain that you'll do me the honour of correcting me if I am mistaken.

YES. Judge the results, not the man. Although it's tempting to verbally attack the man, I do acknowledge that it's wrong to do so.

One interpretation of an intentional botched invasion of Iraq is that the military is used as a destabilizing force in an oil-heavy region. Driving up the price of oil, as a result, and increasing the value of oil futures. This makes oil interests very happy, but as a result, it also encourages market shifts towards alternative methods of fuel.

Neither, and both at the same time. While I have no doubts that different agendas are at work, the overall war itself was and still is conducted with a surprising degree of coordination. Talk of an "exit strategy" is a red herring. While the democrats and republicans all talk of such a "exit strategy" they are only talking in context of limited withdraws and not a complete expulsion of our military forces. Honestly I have no way of knowing either way. It's somewhere close to impossible to determine, but skepticism from the very beginning has been a problem in the matter of civil discourse.

Whether I'm right or not, I think we can all agree that the Iraq War was started and carried on without as much scrutiny as it deserved. Certainly more then just OIL. The resource, or what was once called Operation Iraqi Liberation. But that'll be up to the historians.

I'd to think what Bush has done has had some positive repurcussions. By channeling this nationalistic frevor into what's essentially a war without end, this practically will guarantee an end to extensive American influence and power abroad. While limiting our foreign policy options, I don't think forcing us to act in accordance with our allies (at the very least) is that bad of an outcome.

I'm don't disagree. I'm just thinking along the lines of the long term causes and effects. I make frequent comparisons between to Nixon and Bush. Mostly because what Nixon did still has such far reaching consequences to this day. Now more then ever it's a common perception that our elected officials are crooks. Republicans or Democrats. This is a particularly new reevaluation completely uncommon years ago. Since immediately after Nixon resigned, it was generally assumed that the system itself was stable. It was only Nixon's fault and personal corruption which made the events of Watergate possible. In the short term, what Bush is doing is not helpful to the America or the world. As for the long term, who's to say?

Nothing personal, by posting what I did I was merely trying to fight against what I consider a relapse into old styles of judgement that yield responsible from our positions of power. Too many liberals/democrats in this country blame the man, not the office. Since the office itself is frequently and easily corruptable and corrupted. My comments were solely based on what I mentioned above. ^

Another interpetation would be the that the invasion/occupation was not botched in the first place. Everything is going according to plan. We have 100,000+ troops in a strategic region at the all important time of the end of the age of cheap and abundant oil.

Was it not Dick Cheney said that the "American way of life is not negotiable."? I don't think he was kidding.

You'll forgive people for focusing more on the current president rather than past presidents, as there's not a lot we can do about the actions of dead men.

You are mistaken sir.

I'm more concerned about Bush's being a bigot than his being a crook. As a bi-sexual woman in a serious relationship with another woman, I am offended and disgusted by Bush's ignorance (as well as the ignorance of all the bigots who agree with him).

Marriage is a matter of law, a contract. It hasn't been a matter of religion or tradition in a very long time. Banning gay marriage like he wants to goes against everything the Constitution stands for. The United States is the laughing stock of the world partly because of these antiquated social stances; it doesn't help that there are so many stupid people out there who actually agree with that nonsense.

Sorry about the tangent, folks, this is just a really sore subject for me (obviously). I'm sick of being persecuted by the country for my sexual orientation. It's morally wrong and makes me have a disliking for this country (despite being employed by it).

As for the topic, I'm sure he is a crook. The guy is the worst President of all time.

What this thread needed more of was lesbians!

Pretty much. I think in our age, when red tape is at its peak (I mean, we can really only get more laws, you know?) we'd expect a president to want to navigate it rather than circumvent it. The fact that Bush is not puts people on edge, because it reminds them how tenuous the idea of a democracy is.

It's more than simply a preconception the public has about what the president should do; it's also a window into his character. That he doesn't feel as if he has to answer to anyone is not a good sign, you know?

Actually, I'm bi-sexual. Still, I am in a serious "lesbian" relationship if the distinction means that much to you. That has no bearing on the fact of the matter, though, which is that Bush is a bigot.

I hear you there. Not a good sign is an understatement. His inability to get through a single speech without mincing several words is a pretty bad sign too, wouldn't you say?

Context? Quote looks to be either delightfully patriotic or fascist.

Really? Worse than Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment, and resigned the office of the President in his second term of office? That's a bold statement. It is also a debatable point, since Nixon had a hand in certain positive acts of government. I would have to say, though, that Nixon would probably have to be nominated to the position of "worst president" if worst means most unscrupulous. If worst simply means most ineffectual, then there are several candidates ahead of Bush, who has in fact been most effective at furthering his own political agenda. Or should I say his father's political agenda?

I'd also point out that George W. Bush is in all likelyhood no different from any other Republican president from the specialised viewpoint of a homosexual voter. One of the unchanging truths of politics is that you must appeal to your core demographic and screw everyone else.

I can see your point, and I do admit that there's something to be said for that as an outcome of this war. However, I cannot bring myself to praise Bush, or his policies for bringing about this outcome. It was not his intention, after all. Indeed, I do not think his conviction has ever wavered. I'm quite certain he still believes that entering into this war was the right and proper thing to do. Of course, it's entirely possible that the majority of the voting public still believe that, too. In that case, I suppose that they would claim that Bush has a powerful and heroic legacy. I don't agree, but as an Englishman, my opinion is irrelevant.

It is easy to blame the man, and not the policies, and it's pointless. He will be gone soon enough, and another will take his place. Whether he wears a red or blue ribbon on his lapel is rather irrelevant. There are only a few fixed points in both conservative and liberal doctrine, and the rest is down to personal style.

I do believe that it's a personal style of George W. Bush to gather more power directly to the office of the president, and I can't say I llike what I've seen of his public image one bit. However, it's his results, and his lasting effect that count, because he won't be there for long, in person. Each president does not come to the office with a clean slate, instead they have been place in a particular position by the actions of the former holder of that office. What Bush could, and could not do, has been partly defined by the groundwork laid down by the former presidents. It is for that reason that it's pointless to blame the man. Whatever you want to blame Bush for, you have to also blame Clinton, to a certain extent, and so forth.

That's the case in politics everywhere, of course. We're still feeling the shockwaves of the Major adminstration over here in Britain, and that ended in the mid 90s. If we're very lucky, the next election might see that legacy finally laid to rest. It has only taken a decade.

I keep hearing this, and things like it, brought up as an argument against Bush; that he's only doing what his father wants. Other than the fact that George Bush is George W. Bush's father, where does it come from? If their political agendas are the same, George Bush has been notably quiet about it, and his closest advisors have been publically unenthusiastic or even opposed to it.

If George W. Bush's agenda was the same as his father's, it would be reasonable to assume that George Bush and his inner circle would be vocal in their support. But they aren't.

Maybe that's just to deceive us.

That depends on what you think was going on in Cheney's head when he was quoted as to saying that. In early 2001 I believe. It's generally assumed that he was referring to the American dependency on cars and our suburban-centric lifestyles.

Intentions don't really matter at this point. The War is on. I didn't mean to say that he should be praised, just that I don't really think intentions have mattered much to history. Only the outcome, or the light in which said outcome was portrayed. Given Bush's public noterioty, it does not bode well for him.

I think every president who has held the office has had a goal of preserving and expanding the power/influence of the office. Not just for themselves, but for their predesscors. Starting from the beginning with Washington. Centralized authorities tend to be authortarian by nature. Drawing more powers to themselves. Can't name a historic example to the contrary. This was probably the prime motivation behind the decentralized Articles of Confederation.

A desire to emulate, or even surpass his father perhaps? I'm no expert, so I'll just link you to an old article in the Guardian where a psychologist talks in detail about Bush's psyche.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...033904,00.html

An old article, but still entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

It comes from the tongue-in-cheek observation that George Bush wanted Saddam Hussain's head on a silver platter, and George W. Bush seems to have delivered. It's not an argument against Bush, as such, when I say it. It's simply the observation that the grudge seems to have been passed down from father to son. I don't suggest that George W. Bush is his father's puppet, in any way. I perhaps phrased that in a misleading way.

Just to clarify, are we both talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about attempting to take those powers which rightfully belong to the other branches of the United States Government, and bring them directly under the personal control of the office of the President. I'm sure you've read a great deal about George W. Bush's views in this matter, so I won't insult you by repeating his statements. All I will say is that if the system of checks and balances is intended to protect the American people from abuse of governmental powers, then the erosion of that system is something to be greatly concerned about. I'm aware that statement is pretty much self-evident, but wouldn't you agree that George W. Bush has done his part to erode that system, and will probably try to do more?

Tongue in cheek statement or not, it might have a psychological basis.

Yeah, we're talking about the same thing.

Absolutely. I don't expect any less from the people that will hold the office after he does. I hate to say it, but nothing Bush has done is a historical precedant. I'd be more keen to denounce him if it was. The system to a great extent is already eroded. Bush's predecessors have set down an awful lot of groundwork in that regard. He's just continuing to forge that particular path.

We probably have the best form of governing, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Nor that we have ideal people running it. Oh well, at least it isn't communism. :D

How can intentions not matter? If someone accidentally accomplishes something positive, then they aren't going to be remembered as a great visionary. They'll be remembered for pulling a Homer.

I'll use the worse recent historical example I can. Adolf Hitler was trying to build a utopia. To take that evolutionary step up for mankind. Mein Kampf if you've read it, make's this painfully clear. Jews, mentally ill, and other "sub-humans" were just holding the human race back on it's next evolutionary step to the "master race". Yet people do not judge Hitler by his intentions. We judge him by the genocide that was brought about by his utopian thinking.
His actions and the overall outcome mattered more then his intentions.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Um, I think I should point out that your example was really bad. Seriously. Adolf Hitler was a bonafide sociopath with delusions of grandeur. He based everything he did on his own bias, with absolutely no facts supporting him whatsoever. His intention was not just to create a utopia, his intention was to wipe out anything that didn't fall into his master plan so as to create a utopia for a race he hand-picked himself.

His intentions were just as bad as his actions.

I think you're confusing the intention with the means. Hitler intended to create a utopia. The means to create that was to rid the world of undesirables.

Yes, he put in writing and spoke about the need to put forth the final solution. If he had left it there we wouldn't have much to discuss other than criticizing his philosophy.

The thing that made it so much worse was the fact that he acted upon those thoughts. The execution of his ideas is what burns into the collective history.

As they say, "actions speak louder than words". However, in the era where thoughtcrime may become a reality, both actions and words may have equal weight and therefore intention will be under greater scrutiny.

You know, I've got an entire book on my desk called "Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science" that details many of the scientific advances that were made by accident or by someone meaning to do something else. For the most part, history doesn't rememember these people found their discovery by accident, but remembers that they were the one to have found it.

Absolutely. But science and politics operate fairly differently. One's character is much more important in a political setting than in a scientific one.

Also scientists who accientaly happened upon a discovery later intentionally developed and investigated it right? That's a far cry from accidentally setting things in motion that other people would subsequently pick up on and expand on.

Yes, but how much of science or philosophy (religion aside) could honestly be said to be based on facts? Eugenics is a bastard mix of both. It had plenty of valid scientific support in that particular age.

That's certainly a acceptable and plausible view that differs from mine. Something historians argue over too. But only Hitler knew his intentions. Maybe not even he did, if he was a complete lunatic near the end. So it's impossible to tell what he intended. That's why history never focuses on intentions. It's just a interesting point of debate/contention.

From a legal standpoint intention counts for a lot already. Only counting when you're speaking in the present tense. It's hard, if not impossible to determine either way. Despite this, there's still a huge difference between the penalties for a premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.

As for thoughtcrime/precrime, technology make's it easier to scam the system. It's never been easier to steal somebody's identity. Just get their social security number and it's practically done. It seems like to me that with every step forward there will be two steps backwards.

Not in all cases. In some cases an exterior authority physically prevented them from following up on their discoveries.

Yeah, I think we are already dwelling heavily into Minority Report territory. Take all these Dateline (IIRC) stories where they do those sting operations to catch internet predators. I work in law enforcement, and even I can't figure out how any of the charges stick.

These news people are only pretending to be underage and luring these "predators" to their houses in order to get them arrested based on what they "thought" they were going there to do. In fact, from the reports I've seen, there were never any children used in these sting operations. Now I may not be a typical police officer, and that stuff may be way outside my field of expertise, but I would almost think this constitutes not only entrapment, but also punishing someone for a crime they "thought" about committing.

Since when did we punish people based on thoughts and intentions? Since when were thoughts and intentions crimes? I know it's important to protect children and all, but this is ridiculous and overboard. Heck, I had a friend who, when she was underage, actually used grown men to satisfy her sexual desires, and she turned out perfectly fine (no pregnancies, no STDs); she was smart and actually put a lot of forethought into intentionally reeling in older men, and she knew exactly what she was doing. Even today, I'd have to consider her the predator over the older men she had sex with! Not all young girls are so innocent. Of course, bottom line is I think it's unjustified to punish someone based on what they think about doing as opposed to what they actually do.

I don't see how it constitutes a legal sting, basically. Like with a normal sting, the cops use a real teenager to, say, buy a pack of cigarettes. Until the transaction is complete, no crime has been committed and no action can be taken. I would think that, in order for these Dateline stings to be legal, not only would they need an actual child on the computer to lure the predators over, but the child would have to be present and the predator would have to actually try to solicit sex out of the child.

Like I said, reeks of Minority Report.

I agree with you, except for this. I mean, punishments are greatly influenced by someone's intent during a crime. But only if a crime has actually taken place, easiest example is different degrees of murder/manslaughter. I know you know that, just in case another reader took you statement at face value.

I don't know much/anything about these stings, but from what I can gather they would/should be illegal in this country. It'd be fantastic if someone has a link as to how these work in the legal system.

I mean, how often do people come *this* close to doing something they shouldn't, and then decide against it. How does one justify punishing them for being close enough to a criminal?

It's cool, I understand, and yes I know what you're talking about. Heh wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't. :p Anyway, yeah, my main point was punishing people for their intent when a crime hasn't actually been committed.

If I had the time, I'd try to find out personally, but work usually leads me down a different path. So yeah, if someone could figure that out, it'd be swell.

Exactly. Been there myself, heh. If I was arrested for every time I thought about breaking the law, I'd have life in prison by now.

What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues.

You are the dumbest nigger in Compton.

Maybe they arrest them not for their actions during the show, but for the metric fuckton of child porn that's later found on their PC.

Yeah, I get the message, you're a bigot too, gotcha.

Better a bigot than being dumb as sin.

There can be any number of reasons why a person would visit the home of a vastly younger friend after discussing sex!

So, Patty, you'd be in support of using actual minors in these sting operations? Should the police apprehend the guy before or after he's unclothed?

That's the problem, these people doing the stings aren't children. Yes, actual underage teens should be used, and the crime is committed when the suspect propositions the teen for sex, plain and simple. If there are no actual children involved, there is no crime.

Well, that's what the laws say, at least.

Uh, yeah. Duh. Just like when the police do those cigarette busts on stores that sell to minors.

They have to use actual minors, not just people who look like minors.

Therein lies the problem, and brings us back to the point I was making. You're arresting people based on what they think. That's not supposed to be how the legal system works, and I would never ever do that on the job myself, regardless of what the "law" might say about it.

It's kinda like those sting cars they use against car thieves. Sure, the cops set the car up as a dummy for someone to try and take, but as far as the thief knows, it's a random car that's primed for the taking. Why should they be let off the hook because their plan backfired?

Given the fact that these stings have been used for years, are still being used, and that the arrests made haven't been overturned, it stands to reason that the courts say otherwise.

Well I'm glad I don't work with people who think like you! It is thought crime because it's not based on truth! No child, no crime!

The only reason it isn't entrapment is because the police aren't the ones doing the trapping. They go online, pretending to be underage, and actually go about luring these people into traps. While I'm sure some of these creeps deserve to go to prison, I can't say for sure that all of them do, especially given my own experience in the matter with my friend I spoke of earlier.

Better to let a hundred guilty go free than to put away even one innocent . . . Who's to say that they would have ever propositioned a child if they weren't tempted to do so? The fact that it would have been entrapment if the police had done it themselves should be reason enough for concern.

Besides, whether you agree with me or not (and I htink while most of America would agree with you, most of the world would probably agree with me), that's no excuse for a lurker spouting off his bigotry at me and his insults and such.

I know that. The system has flaws, that's obvious. I still refuse to go after people based on thought, especially since I'm against most "age of consent" laws to begin with. (That's a big deal to me, I think the age of consent is far too high in most places, and I believe that based on experience.)

Still no excuse for a lurker to hurl flames at me.

Stings wherein female police officers are used to lure johns are highly publicised; I'd be shocked if the news stories haven't penetrated your thick nignog skull. If they were illegal, wouldn't they have been challenged by now?

The solution is that you love child porn.

Last time I watched one of those Dateline/60 Minutes/whatever shows regarding their sting operation to catch predators, like three out of four of the guys who showed up at the "meeting" were convicted sex offenders. Maybe anyone who is against these stings should THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

I'm gonna answer your points in reverse here.

Use a real child during the internet stings. It ain't rocket science. You aren't (usually) exposing them to anything they don't already know (for the most part). Why? A lot of teenagers have sex, that's why.

So why not use actual children? As soon as the suspect propositions for sex, it's time for the bust.

Like I said, I don't like the current age of consent laws to begin with. While I never had sex with anyone older when I was underage, I did lose my virginity at 16, and I have no regrets whatsoever. Sexually speaking, I've turned out fine, and I would venture to guess that most kids do. If a kid knows what he or she is doing when having sex with another minor, I don't see why it's so different if the partner is older. Makes no sense to me. As I said, my friend was the "predator" when she propositioned and seduced older guys; quite often she knew what she was doing more than the older men did! I know because I was there from the time we were 16, and she was very intelligent. She was just a free spirit, that's all.

Making blanket laws to "protect" groups of people that don't always need protecting just doesn't sit well with me.

If you knew anything about the law, you'd know that these things have been challenged based on the circumstances. If the female officer is asked directly if she is a police officer, she has to answer honestly or else the evidence is inadmissable. In addition to that, she can't be the one to make the proposition, the suspect does. If these two thigns aren't followed, it constitutes entrapment.

Like I said, I'm sure some of them deserve it, but these sex offenders should have never gotten out of prison to begin with! The exact crime, however, would also matter, and since you rarely get that specific information on these news programs, it's hard telling whether they're in one group or the other.

Listen, asshole, I've had just about enough of your mouth and your offensive behavior. I'm gonna warn you to cease your bullshit right now.

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

Double Post:
You are the dumbest nigger in Harlem.

Filth? Like I said, I turned out fine, and so do most kids. I'm not talking about using 11-year-olds here! I'm talking about using older teens that are at least 15 or 16 and are already sexually active!


You honestly think I'm the only one? At my high school, I think a majority of students were active by 16 or 17. Can't give you exact data or anything, but from being there, I can say it's a safe bet.

No, I'm serious. It shows that the "child" isn't always a victim. I would think that makes a big difference.

"Children" that are 15 or 16 that are already sexually active aren't being "exposed" to anything.

Okay, so I was wrong about the specifics of entrapment. Sue me. I already said long ago that I'm not a police officer, just that I work in law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, we don't all know everything about everything (that and I've only been doing my job for about a year). My area of work has nothing to do with busting hookers or arresting child molestors.

The point I made earlier, if you bothered to even read the posts, was that I disagreed with arresting people based on what they thought they were doing, when based upon lies in and of themselves. That and, even though you were right about "asking the cop", you still haven't managed to dispute what I said about the action having to actually be a crime. I don't see how propositioning an adault pretending to be a minor could be a crime, and if it is, it's a "thought-based" crime.

Oh, and your offensive language is really starting to piss me off, you arrogant piece of shit.

HELLO, it isn't like these stings are catching fine, upstanding good Americans. They're catching people who are INTERESTED IN SLEEPING WITH MINORS. If they go to a meeting setup by law enforcement, then that tells me with 100% certainty that given the opportunity, they would meet with an actual minor. I'm sorry but could you please go back to ffshrine.

Except pedophiles. Additionally, what about children that are younger than that? Children cannot legally consent to these sorts of things, so they need permission slips from their parents. If no parents in the area are willing to allow their children to do this - how do you even advertise a need for this? - do you want the police to go without? What happens if the pedo in question wants to strike back against the child?

You haven't thought this out very far past your friend.


But I thought you knew about law. I guess I showed you.

You can be arrested for attempted murder. This is attempted statutory rape, among other things. Tell me the difference.

You kiss your mammy with this mouth?

Double Post:
oh christ

You honestly believe sixteen year olds, frequently enough to be worth changing laws over, know more than 26 year olds.

What sort of bizarro world do you live in lady?

Well when those convicted sex offenders could be 26-year-olds who got caught with 16-year-olds, then yeah, I'll defend them. I don't think it's right to make that a crime. Now a 40-year-old with a 10-year-old, that is a crime.

As for encouraging or discouraging sex, it's not that I think teens should be encouraged to have lots of sex, I just don't see any reason to discourage it, and I'm certainly against criminalizing it when we're talking about the 15-17 range.

As for your stats, here you go:

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...Fact-Sheet.pdf

So it turns out that the number is actually 47% (just short of a majority) as of 2003, but when I entered high school in 1995, it was a majority. 47% is still pretty damn close to a majority, though, don't you think? This at least proves my point that there are plenty of sexually active teenagers.

I don't see any reason to discourage sexual activity. Instead, I think a bigger effort should be made to encourage safe sex.

Like I said, I disagree with the age of consent laws. In fact, stats disagree with each other! States range from 15 all the way up to 18 for the age of consent; in addition, some states give different ages to boys and girls, and different ages to heterosexual relations and homosexual relations!

So you may see people interested in sleeping with minors, but there's a big difference between wanting to sleep with a 16-year-old minor versus wanting to sleep with a 10-year-old minor.

Just ask local parents or whatever. The identity of the child in question need never be revealed, so backlash is a moot point.

Like all law enforcement, I know certain laws better than others. Specifically, those I deal with daily I tend to know better than those that are outside my jurisdiction.

Gladly. You can't be arrested for "thinking" you want to murder someone, nor can you be arrested for "killing" a fictional character that doesn't exist. Just the same, how can you be punished for planning to have sex with a child that doesn't exist?

Honestly, I'd like to know the exact ages that are being portrayed. If we're talking 10-13, then fine, I would just drop it, but the thing is, the law in many states consider even 16 (and sometimes 17) to be too young, and I have a big problem with that.

It's called the real world. Not that they know more, just that they know just as much.

But it's not up to you to determine what's a crime. The law is very clear about it, and in this case you arguing that no crime was comitted is mistaken.

The rest of us are arguing that it is right, just and proper for pedophiles who proposition children on the internet are busted in hilarious Candid Camera-type scenarios, and you are getting defensive because you touched a peener when you were sixteen. These are different things. That you can't understand this is your problem.

No, I get defensive because I have heard of cases where a guy of 19 or 20 gets sent to prison for a decade for having sex with his girlfriend of 17! It happens, and it isn't right.

STDs and pregnancy happen just as much after 18 as it does before. As for alcohol, I am in favor of lowering the age to probably 18 if not 16; if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink. I do believe in life sentences for drinking and driving, though.

As for smoking, I don't like that at any age, and second-hand smoke is a killer, so I love seeing cities that ban smoking in public. That's a much better use of resources.

Now you need to post statistics. Who's to say the older one is manipulating the younger one in all these cases? Or even most of them?

What does that have to do with predator-trolling on the internet?

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

Why should they have to wait, if they both want it? Better to change the law to something a little more practical and logical.



I'm not saying we should let 30-year-olds mess around with 13-year-olds, I'm saying we need to be more practical and logical in lawmaking. It all boils down to the ridiculous statutory rape laws, which vary from state to state even (which in and of itself is wrong in my opinion, as someone used to one age of consent could be arrested for not knowing the age of consent upon moving, and most normal people wouldn't). My problem is with blanket laws that will hit the 30/13 difference as hard as it will hit the 21/17 difference. How do we know the subjects of these stings are in the former group and not the latter?

So they are related in that a child has sex with an adult, nevermind the child's intentions at the time or the adult's relationship with the child.

You are the dumbest nigger in South Africa.

I tried but you kept being so dumb.

Yes but a 22 year old woman is a whole lot more prepared, both mentally and physically, to handle pregnancy, motherhood, and all of the responsibilities associated with this than a 15 year old. You can dispute this all you want, but you will be wasting your time, because it will be illogical.

No, you're saying that attempted child rape isn't really a crime because he only thought he'd get some tail that night. You are also saying you want children to work off the books for the police force in situations that may place them in very real danger.

Sadly, this also varies from state to state. Again, a problem in my eyes.

Having sex with her shouldn't make him a criminal in the first place! Why enforce ridiculous laws instead of making the laws better?

I'm done "discussing" things with you. Back the fuck off, asshole!

Nope, I don't dispute that at all. I just think it's irrelevent. A rich person is more prepared to handle pregnancy than a poor person, too; should only the rich be allowed to have sex? Of course not! This is why I advocate safe sex.

EDIT: Why is it I'm being attacked and flamed for having the opinion that, basically, our society needs to be more open about sexuality?

You haven't discussed anything with me because your points are bullshit at best and easily cut down. You feel that sixteen years old is a fine time for children to be allowed to do whatever they want to do. Furthermore, you feel that planning and being in the process of executing a crime is mere thought crime.

You have never grown out of being sixteen years old.

Double Post:
Because you want to open an enormous can of ethical worms on a group of people in the misguided attempt to liberate them.

Oh right, the readily available methods of having safe sex have 100% success rates, yeah I forgot. :rolleyes:

Also, you seem to think that you can argue whether a person comitted a crime or not, not based on any real law, but because you like the action and/or the person.

Thankfully, most of America still agrees with me on that.

No, I feel thinking you're doing one thing while actually doing another, and getting arrested for it, is thought crime.

There are no guarantees in life. That's no excuse to make sex illegal until 18 (as is the case in some states).

Do you have ADD or something? I said from the beginning that I'm against these laws because I feel they are punishing thought. That and I question the legality of the stings. Oh, and I'm morally against some aspects of these laws.

What you claim I've been doing and what I've been doing are two very different things.

If I may make a suggestion, Patty, perhaps it would be better if you dropped this argument and just moved on.

You are wrong, and mistaken, and do not understand the concept of thought crime.

You are absolutely right here. I was claiming until now, because I'm such a nice guy, that you were being a little misguided in your arguments. What you are actually doing is flailing about nothing.

What? Not a single person in this thread said it should be illegal for people of consent age to have sex with other people of consent age.

Only you, the dumbest nigger in Darfur, said that actual real-life children should be employed by the police in order to make something that is absolutely illegal... extra illegal, so you feel more comforted that what they are not doing is a thought crime. I honestly don't know, you know. Since it's just words on the screen, and ideally the predator will never come in contact with the child, I just can't see how it makes any difference.

No, most of America does not agree with you, Patty. They do not want their children, virgin or not, placed in harm's way or used by the police as live bait. Most of America furthermore does not like the ethical quandary of training up a fleet of children in a high-turnover (you're not sixteen forever) field for propositioning men for sex. Most of America's young are not mentally mature enough for such work, do you really need me to tell you this?

The reason why real live prostitutes aren't used for stings is because they do not have the training necessary to keep themselves protected if something really bad happened. If a real live prostitute died in her line of duty, she's a dumb bitch (orders of magnitudes less dumb than you but I digress); if she dies in the line of police duty, it's because the force and therefore the government failed her.

And you tell me, because a couple of guys got dealt rotten hands in life, you want this to happen to children.

I had a big post typed up to retaliate against a lurker, but I've decided to be the mature one here and not let it get out of control. Still, after that most recent post, I can't just walk away either.

It appears that a lurker has done a good job of skewing my words to make me look bad. That ends right now. I'm not against preventing rape. I know how horrible rape is. This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.

I'm against statutory rape laws. Stopping the guys that would go after actual kids (like young, up to like 13), I've got no problem with that. I just think there's a big gray area in the 15-18 range in some states that allows the law to put away normal people who may just happen to be breaking the law. I do think the legal age should be 15 or 16 nationwide (it already is 16 in many states), and that's a big part of my problem with these stings.

That and I'm heavily against luring based on false pretenses. It just seems dishonest to me, and I'm really big on honesty.

So to quote O'Reilly, "the spin stops here". People need to stop acting like I'm in favor of letting little kids loose with old men and start reading what I post in full. I'm against statutory rape and I'm against being dishonest to bust people. That is the bottom line of what I believe.

No, it's about online predators visiting children's homes with the intent to have sex with them. Whether the child, at the time of the visit, wants sex or not is irrelevant, because Sgt. Patty of the Keystone Kops thinks this should be perfectly legal, and that it should only be an illegal act if the child.. is actually home?

I think there's a major disconnect here, darkie. You want children who have zero formal training to act as police decoys, don't you think this would lead to trouble down the road?

Wow, um.

...uh.

You do know that your child lures will not want sex with these men, right? They're just going to say that they do in order for the bust to work?

.....

You mean to tell me that these kids are going to play honestly with the guys, and that you expect the kids will lead the guys to their real-life house where the bust will be made instead of a decoy home?

............

You are the dumbest nigger in the Congo.

All rape is considered forced (otherwise it wouldn't be rape yuk durr).

Statuotory rape is a default status that occurs when one of the parties is considered to be mentally incapable of providing consent.

Pedophilia is the state of being attracted to sexually undeveloped people. Prosecuting people for being pedophiles would constitute as a thought crime, because in being a pedophile, one only thinks about or wants to have sex with children.

When one actively plans out and executes the attempted statuory rape of a child is when one crosses the line of being a pedophile to being a prospective kid-diddler.

That is the difference, because whether or not the person being propositioned is actually a child, the suspect in question has still intended to rape one. Attempted Rape.

Idiot thieves aren't let off the hook because their attempted robbery didn't fall through and nothing was actually stolen.

End of the fucking discussion.

Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated. Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective, and no amount of niggerdom will change that.

Okay, fine by me. I won't say anything else about that in that case.

You did say something, though, that I feel the need to address, if anything to be informative . . .

This is not true, not by legal definition. This is something I do know, as I have dealt with people on both sides of the issue.

Not quite. Statutory rape is when a person that is above the age of consent has sex with a person who is not above the age of consent. You can put in a search at Dogpile for "statutory rape", or just look at one of these links:

http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmar...tutoryrape.htm

How many moderators have to tell you to drop the statutory rape subject?

Bush is a crook. DISCUSS.

And the age of consent is an establishment of the ability to provide consent. Since the offering of consent requires certain mental faculties, one who is under the age of consent is considered incapable of providing it. Thus, it is assumed that they lack the capacities (mental ones) to provide consent.

Whether or not one has been violently raped or given into pressures does not mean that one case excludes the presence of force. If I threatened you into sucking my dick, and you relented, does that not constitute an act of force via threat? I've essentially forced you to do something against your will with threat.

If an act of rape was consentual, then it wouldn't be rape.

Go back to Africa you fucking Jiggaboo.

Patty, why do you keep misunderstanding the term 'legal'? If anything the legal definition is very strict and unambiguous, more than any other definition you care to employ.

Perhaps what you wanted to say was "by the emotional definition". It's awkward, but 'overly emotional' is the only way I can characterize your arguments, girl.

Catching him is physically infeasable, I'm sorry to say. You can see those high-strength muscle fibers at work in his pedalling motion.

I bet dinosaurs could catch him. RAWR

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030317/spino.jpg

He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject. The definition of statutory rape is something he just now brought up.

A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules, yet not given any warnings to a lurker despite his breaking several big rules continually in this thread? Rules are to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe I'd actually listen if you actually enforced the actual rules. I have yet to break any of the rules.

As I said, that's not true. If a 19-year-old has consensual sex with his 17-year-old underage girlfriend (in states where the age of consent is 18), then it's still statutory rape. There was absolutely no force, but it's still statutory rape. Basically, there are two general categories of rape: forcible and statutory. Forcible rape is when you force or coerce or use threats to get sex from anyone, regardless of age; statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.

Okay, I've fucking had it. Now a "Moderator" is throwing racial slurs around? First off, you're as moronic as a lurker is because I'M NOT BLACK, which makes these racial slurs all the more retarded (but no less offensive). How did a racist bigot like you ever become a moderator anyway?

I would have shut up about this a long time ago if one of you guys had stepped in and stopped the attacks a lurker was throwing at me. If he doesn't have to follow the rules, then why should I? Sorry, I don't roll like that. Now Bradylama, I'm willing to drop this if you take back your attack and then actually enforce the rules as stated in the thread posted by Lord Styphon (which would mean warning a lurker and leaving me alone seeing as I haven't broken the rules). I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.

I will not tolerate the anti-homosexual comments or the racial slurs, not even from a moderator. I don't get intimidated so easily. I thought this was a place where friendly debate could occur, and I have been polite and nice throughout up until this point. Was I wrong? I will not play nice with racist bigots, regardless of how much power they have. Instead of hiding behind your power and joining the attacks, why don't you try participating in the discussion instead?

He prompted people to return to the original subject of the thread, not to go into another tangent over another subject that is absolutely just as objective. An aspect of what is definitive of rape is not up for discussion. It is not worth discussing because it is definitive. CONCRETE. You're insistence doesn't change fact.

You have broken three, five, seven and eight. If you're finger pointing at lurker for have breaking rule 4, please make note of the phrase, "without provocation."

Do you realize that the whole idea behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age are incapable of consent. Consensual statutory rape is an oxymoron. You are dumber than Jimmy Walker.

Statutory rape is any sex occuring to a party incapable of consent. This includes your emotionally-laden forceable rape. Just what are you trying to argue here?

Double Post:
Why are you telling Brady how to moderate? I think he's done this before, you know.

That Is Not The Reason Why, For What It's Worth.

EXCUSE ME?! Bush sucks, I know this, and I stated the reasoning why I think he sucked, and it's not my fault it went off on a tangent, so I didn't break 3. As for 5, I don't consider wanting equal protection under the rules to be ranting. For 7, I have never started any threads on gay marriage, and only mentioned it in a post because it had to do with what I thought about Bush (which made it on-topic); I was not trying to start some debate about it, and it hasn't been mentioned since! 8, I haven't broken, flat-out.

Read a law book. I know all about the damn rape laws, I've dealt with this shit plenty in my lifetime. Statutory rape is illegal consentual sex. I even provided links which showed this. Do I need to provide more links?

Here you go:

www.nphf.org/file_push.php?file_choice=45

Note the line that reads: "Juries sometimes do not accept statutory rape as a crime because it is consensual sex." On the right side of page 2 of that document. Am I the only one who can admit to being wrong around here (as I did about the "asking cops if they're cops" issue)?

I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally. I never said anything remotely inflamatory toward him until he'd already provoked me multiple times over! So basically, either you didn't read the whole thread, or you're lying to cover each other! Please, show me where I started things and provoked him. I'd love to see this.

The first shot was fired in his post where he said "What this thread needed more of was lesbians!", followed by his post that read "What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues. You are the dumbest nigger in Compton." Please, show me where I provoked him into saying these things. He's been attacking my sexual orientation and throwing racial slurs since back on page 2!

You called me an asshole, and ignored pretty much everything I said that wasn't calling attention to your kinky hair.

My feelings were pretty hurt.

I called you an asshole after you had provoked me repeatedly over the course of like four posts.

But it was still impolite. Becides, you didn't discuss anything with me, you just kept saying stupid things repeatedly. It's not my fault that I had to get your attention somehow.

This was your introduction to the thread. Within you shifted the topic of the thread (3). In this and in the following comments you ranted on a personal subject that had been singled out as a dead horse not to be beaten (5,7). In being completely inept with your reasoning, you have failed to use common sense (8).

You have provoked any intelligent person into verbally assaulting you by making outrageous suggestions, among them being that sexual predators can be the victims of their own attacks upon minors and that children should be put in harms way purposely by the authorities in order to catch pedophiles. Lurker particularly has reason to be upset because you have hijacked the thread she started.

I gave my opinion on the matter, and did so in a perfectly polite and reasonable manner. You have no place to say I provoked anyone just because of my beliefs. Hell, that defeats the entire purpose of debate!

Oh, and excuse me for not liking the idea of tricking people into thinking you're something you clearly aren't in order to catch criminals. I tend to take the direct approach myself when I deal with situations. Again, these are my opinions, my beliefs, and that's what discussion is all about.

Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause. If a lurker didn't want the subject to veer from "Bush is a crook" to "Bush sucks" (which is what your fellow mods have declared this topic to be), then instead of insulting me, she should have just ignored the comment and let it be, or politely ask to get back to her particular topic. She didn't do that. Instead, she responded by making personal attacks. How is that reasonable or justified in any way? Let's not forget that not a single moderator, or even admin Lord Styphon, made any attempt to go back to the "original" topic, and fully participated in the discussion.

Hell, I was going to take Lord Styphon's advice to just move on until a lurker posted yet more attacks directed toward me. Despite my having marked all of the offensive posts, no one said a word to her. The first actual warning, of any sort, came when Bradylama said not to talk about whether or not soliciting sex from a minor constitutes pedophilia, which I complied with. Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it (and intended that to be the end of it), he comes back with, surprise surprise, verbal attacks of his own, despite my providing multiple links supporting what I said.

So am I just supposed to put up with such unprovoked attacks? Hell no, I refuse. When people attack me, I intend to respond. If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple. All these racial slurs (ignorant in the incorrectness of them) and stabs at my lifestyle, I won't tolerate that kind of crap anymore.

Good lord.

No, no it doesn't. The act does not have to be deliberate and intentional.

What does that have to do with you repeatedly spouting nonsense about rapists and the cops who pull a fast one on them?

Because she is exceptionally gifted at it.

Are you suggesting that you win because you can yell over and longer than everyone else?

Absolutely not, when it's obvious you haven't at all thought about your position becides "honesty is the best policy".

You think underaged people can legally consent to anything. You are the dumbest nigger in Somalia, a land where I imagine obtaining parental permission to so much as pee is a foreign concept.

I find this response to be argumentative for its own sake. You know damn well what I meant when I told you to get back onto topic and you chose to split hairs.

In between the time I last viewed this thread and now, this discussion has gone nowhere except in the tiny, little circle-jerk you wish it to. Despite the urgings of several moderators who've pointed out, verbatim, where you've broken rules and crossed lines, you continue to nitpick and whine about a subject that is far to the left of this thread's original intent. You've been asked to return to the original discussion but have only lead it further astray.

I don't normally put my foot down in the Political Palace, but your arrogance and impudence in the face of the resident authority prompt me to take uncharacteristic action.

I declare this thread CLOSED.

Patty, if you continue to behave in this manner, in other threads, I will strongly push for disciplinary action. Debate is fair, but when a moderator tells you to do something, arguing semantics of that demand for the next page and a half is completely unacceptable.

It's not hard to keep people out of entire forums, you know.