Bush is a crook.

Well, kinda.

Quote:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

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

Quote:

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Fjordor

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

You are mistaken sir.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What this thread needed more of was lesbians!

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

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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

Quote:

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.

You are the dumbest nigger in Compton.

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

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!

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Use a real child during the internet stings. It ain't rocket science.

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

You are the dumbest nigger in Harlem.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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

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.

Quote:

Okay, so I was wrong about the specifics of entrapment. Sue me.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

You kiss your mammy with this mouth?

Double Post:
oh christ

Quote:

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

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

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.

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

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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

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:

Quote:

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?

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

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PattyNIG

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.

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?

Quote:

I'm against being dishonest to bust people.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PattyNIG

This is not true, not by legal definition.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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

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:

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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).

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

Quote:

I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally.

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by PattyNIG

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.

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

Quote:

Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it

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 was speaking idiomatically.