Bush is a crook.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective

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.

Quote:

A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules.

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."

Quote:

statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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).

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Good lord.

Quote:

Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause.

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

Quote:

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),

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

Quote:

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?

Because she is exceptionally gifted at it.

Quote:

If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?