I rarely agree with you, I am also rarely nice and sweet and I also rarely care about your opinion or the fact you think I am missing the point. I do however make rolled eye smilies and laugh evilly when I think of the carpal tunnel syndrome you must suffer while concocting your epic novel style replies. What do you say to that?
Clarence Thomas right again
- Thread starter hugo
- Start date
timesjoke
Active Members
And I have asked you guys over and over again at how boring the world would be if we all agreed on everything.
Don't feel bad, many humans have made that choice to stop being sweet in this modern world, I guess it is too much trouble.
But you do show a tad bit of it now and then, remember the day we all shared pictues in the shout box? You were very sweet that day.
And there is where most of you do differ from me. I do care, not because I want to be like you or mirror your beliefs to fit in but because I really do want to know where people are coming from on their possitions but more often than not when you pressure people on the "why" of their beliefs they turn out not really knowing themselves and that is why they turn insulting because they have no other way of defending their beliefs.
I say the two girls in my office who spend the day typing out the various proposals and contracts for all of us type about a million more words a day than I could even fully understand. One of the girls types over 100 words per minute, I'm sure if she can type a lot without any carpal tunnel syndrome, I should be good to go, lol.
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
I don't think you're getting the point... it's not that I like child molesters or even want them to have the same rights... It is that fair is fair... If they submit to the same laws as everyone else, and the punishment for raping a kid is 15 years plus parole, then when he is done with his 15 years and his parole and whatever stipulations they put on them after (like not being able to go with 'x' feet of a school/playground/whatever) they finish, then let them be...
Now, if you want to talk about a long term solution, or 'fixing' them, make the punishment harsher. Make it 100 years, no parole opportunity, or death penalty. But if they go through with the punishment that they are given, just like anybody else, let them live under the same laws.
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
Exactly what I was trying to say... maybe worded better than mine
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
The point is, if you don't like the laws, get them changed. Don't give the federal government more power than it already has. It's a dangerous start.
timesjoke
Active Members
Again, if protecting soceity from danger is not already a responsibility of Government, what is?
The power was already there my friend, this is not a new power, if the Government can already take a life, than how much more power can they have?
I'll ask you the question too being as she will never answer it, what if a State suddenly said child molesting is no longer a crime? Is that okay? Should the Federal Government be hands off? Your missing the real point of my possition. Protecting the public is the first responsibility of Government, if a State cannot do that, then the Feds have to step in and do it because you can't just have 'some' of these guys loose on the streets. That is why I also mentioned terrorists, if you know for a fact this terorist will kill people, do you release him into America just to preserve your version of "purity"?
And whos child pays the price for your feelings of "purity"? Do you offer one of your loved ones up for sacrifice? I say anyone who wants pedophiles released should be forced to move them into their homes first as a kind of halfway house, then we will see the depth of their convictions and "purity". It is always easy to talk about releasing these monsters into the public when you never have to face them yourself.
I say openly and proudly that I don't wan't them on the street once they have demonstrated they cannot live in polite society (for cause). If that goal can be accomplished by each State, fine, no biggie, but if the States refuse to deal with this problem, then I want the Federal Government to step in and protect society, that is their job. This is no different than the Civil rights movement, without force applied by the Federal Government, many States would have ignored the laws. States are run by people, and people don't always do the right thing.
sigh
Nobody wants pedophiles released, nobody wants them in our home...in fact ship them off to The North Pacific Gyre. If society doesn't want the pedos to go free then the law needs to be amended so that this never happens. However, if it is decided that 15 years is the punishment then it should be adhered. If "adjustable" sentences are allowed it has to be applied to all. Everyone wants their children protected, but I don't want a completely corrupt system where sentences are dished out because someone has a big chip on their shoulder. The tax payer can't afford to house all the douche nozzles in the world for life TJ. Get realistic for about two seconds.
I say use the pedos for nasty experiments. They can't be rehabilitated..but..I do not make the laws. We can petition for amendments for sure..and I would absolutely support it...but do it the right way. This was a gross abuse of power.
Nobody wants pedophiles released, nobody wants them in our home...in fact ship them off to The North Pacific Gyre. If society doesn't want the pedos to go free then the law needs to be amended so that this never happens. However, if it is decided that 15 years is the punishment then it should be adhered. If "adjustable" sentences are allowed it has to be applied to all. Everyone wants their children protected, but I don't want a completely corrupt system where sentences are dished out because someone has a big chip on their shoulder. The tax payer can't afford to house all the douche nozzles in the world for life TJ. Get realistic for about two seconds.
I say use the pedos for nasty experiments. They can't be rehabilitated..but..I do not make the laws. We can petition for amendments for sure..and I would absolutely support it...but do it the right way. This was a gross abuse of power.
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
What you're missing is that there is already a system in place for the government to protect us... It's called laws. When someone breaks the law, they suffer the consequences... When they have met the terms of the consequences, they should no longer be punished. If you don't like the laws or the consequences, try to have the laws changed. There is a process for changing laws.
How much more do you want them to have? They can "only" take a life if you are a criminal. You can stretch this however you want to, but giving the ability to change the sentence that somebody was given on a whim is a bad idea. It's a slippery slope that can only get worse. Next they will be able to hold/punish you for an extra 10 years for having a joint... Or having a drink, or eating meat. Slippery slope.
If your state says that, then there are some sick people there who changed the laws to fit themselves. I would suggest moving. Laws like that should be a state's right issue though. If pedos are that big a problem in your state, try to have the laws changed or move to a state that has laws that fit your ideals better.
Nobody has to pay this price. If you have kids that a pedo would target, you take measures to protect them. The government should not have to be your nanny. Whether your state imprisons pedo's for 10 years or 10 days, that is the law there. If you want it changed, do something. Otherwise, do whatever you have to, lawful or not, to protect your family.
If you support them not being on the street, get the laws changed so that they spend the rest of their lives in jail, or make it a death penalty crime.
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
i agree with this
timesjoke
Active Members
And people have been trying to change the laws, but until they can get the local governments to follow what the majority of Americans want then these pieces of garbage are on the street. What happens when the State just flat out refuses to fix the problem?
Your missing that point that the Feds are there to step in when the States screw up, that is why I mentioned Rondey King. The cops would never have been charged with civin rights violations had the State been successful in imposing their own punnishments but the Sta failed so the Feds came in with their own charges and got the job done. The feds act as a safety net to catch the things the States drop, and I agree with that system because the only other alternative is to have these cratures back on the streets.
Exactly, as I said, for cause, so we see here a cause for action by the federal Government, we have a child molester who will molest again if released, and the Government taking steps to ensure that they do not do that.......for cause.
A whim?
You think wanting to protect children from a predator is something akin to a whim? Why can't that goal be more than just a whim? Why can't the goal to protect children from those who have "proven" they will hurt tham be a founding principle of humanity? Why can't the Federal Government enact guidelines and rules outside of the States to ensure the States do not screw up? Your other points of joints and such are just going overboard, of course the crime must measure up to the level of enforcement, and I believe a child molester does measure up to that high of a scale, trying to insert such insignificant things is not being reasonable buddy.
So because a few leaders in a State want to allow child molestation to be legal, all those people in the State should move to protect their children?
I don't agree, I like the States to have certain rights, but not to ignore the people and what they want.
Almost all Americans want these monsters off the streets, if the States refuse, then someone should step in and take care of this and if that means it is the feds, I'm okay with that but it sure would be nice to see the States pay attention to the people enough to fix the problem.
Nieve.
If your going to condone the releasing of pedophiles you need to at least be honest enough to admit that there "will" be children who will pay a price for your demanding they be released back into society. If you can't make that admission than your not taking the discussion seriously.
No parent can be 100% watchful of their children, **** even the teachers have been busted molesting children so you can't even say they are safe at school.
So yes, there will be victims, the question is once someone has demonstrated they are willing to molest children, what "should" be dome about that person? If the State refuses to be reasonable in dealing with these monsters, then yes, I want the Feds to step in and deal with it, just like they did for the Rodney Kind situation.
Is that not what I am doing right now?
I am supporting a set of laws that do protect children the way I want them protected, I would support these moves at the State level as a first choice of course, but in the absense or reasonable actions on the State level, I will take the Federal level as a sad but reasonable alternative. It is really bad that the States even left such a big problem hanging without response forcing the Feds to take action in the first place.
my main point
These monsters "NEED" to be dealt with, if not by the States, then the Feds, this is not a question of something that can be ignored or delayed because each of these failures represents a child who is raped and maybe even killed while the debate goes nowhere. Inactivity and argueing in circles the destruction of a child's life, and this is unacceptable.
Consider the biggest complaint about the Federal Government right now is that they are not listening to the people, well the people are screaming to deal with these animals, so now your saying that the federal Government should continue to ignore the will of the people and refuse to deal with this problem?
RegisteredAndEducated
New member
You take your revenue from that state and give it to a state where that listens a little better. What, you think that the FEDERAL government will listen better? Get a movement together (or join one that's already in your area that you agree with) and have the politicians that "refuse" to fix the problem removed from power.
I think that the federal government overstepped in the RK case. From what I understand, he got what he deserved, and the cops were charged with crimes when they should not have been. But that is a subjective view and not really the point of the argument.
The Federal government does have some jurisdiction over some things, but they shouldn't be brought into what should be considered state matters. If they want a federal law, let them go through the proper process and get an amendment passed.
I've stated my argument to this. If the government wants to take prosecution of this crime over, let them do it the proper way. Not just on a whim.
Rehabilitating pedo's does not work, change the laws. But don't give the government the power to change the punishment as their little heart desires without following the proper procedures.
yes... a whim.. I'm pretty sure I spelled it right... I really appreciate how you twist words and context. You're a master, it's almost like art? You should go to work as a spin doctor for one of the parties.
Regardless of what the law that is broken is, there is a prescribed punishment. Once someone has met the conditions of punishment, that punishment should be over. Regardless of the law broken.
The scale of the punishment for the crime is irrelevant... My point is that if you start allowing the WHIM of the government to change punishments for breaking a law without following proper process, what says they can't change the punishment for any crime on a whim. It wasn't over board at all. In fact I would argue that it is dead on. I'm pointing out that once you give that power to government, it's a real ***** to get back. And if you start on that slippery slope, you're bound to fall, hard and fast. You're asking for the government to start taking over, one insignificant thing at the time. Before long, they'll start with bigger things. Read this all very carefully, even you can see that I'm probably pretty correct.
So you say screw states rights, let's let the government take over and run the whole show. Take into consideration that this does not ONLY effect this one law, this will effect all future laws as well. That's how it works. State laws are state laws for a reason. Federal laws are federal laws for a reason. There are loopholes in every case, but don't let the government take over something without following the proper channels.
Should I go into the slippery slope thing again?
How is this 'naive'? I'm not demanding anything except that the government follow the laws.
What you don't get is that this is not entirely about pedophiles... this is about the government overstepping boundaries and taking over something that they have no business doing and have no right to take over.
If the crime were shoplifting, would your position be different?
How about murder?
How about if it were a crime to kill someone when defending yourself or your home... Would you feel differently then?
You're climbing up a slippery slope TJ, and I'm just making sure you see that...
That is exactly NOT the question. This vote was looked at completely objectively by Clarence Thomas. He wasn't looking at it like it was pedo, or murderer, or shoplifter. He made his vote based on the constitutionality of it and based on the lawfulness of it. And he made the right choice.
If you want to talk about pedos, I agree with you. I think they are scum of the earth, and they don't deserve to breath the same air that everyone else does. I personally think that convicted pedophiles should be castrated and humiliated (in the most cruel and unusual way possible) and eventually be put to death in a very painful slow way. But this isn't about pedophiles... It's about changing laws on a whim or following proper process.
no... it's not. You're supporting government growth and their gaining of power.
So you just want the pedos held for another 20 days... or 10 years? You don't want something more done? That's kind of a band-aid on the situation, no? Government growth with no real benefits... They eventually get out... And what have you given up for that short amount of time that makes you feel so good? You've given up the moral authority to do the right thing every time. [sarcasm]Bravo...[/sarcasm]
If this is your main point, then you've missed the entire point of the argument or the thread. It's about the rule of law, and following that law, without making up new rules as you go along (without following the law).
It really has less to do with pedos than it does my point above. Pedo's just happen to be the subject of the government's whim.
When there are enough people that organize and request change of the government, they will change. Look the the coming elections for the proof of this.
timesjoke
Active Members
I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
How is playing games with federal funding protecting a child from a predator? And that only makes the feds look like the bad guy because the State just screams about all the hungry children that are being hurt by the funding withdrawal, and more time wasted on BS while the problem goes unsolved.
RK just got what he deserved? He was certainly an azzhole, but these cops are the representation of the law, they should not be acting like that. You don't want the Government to have the power to hold pedophiles but at the same time you want cops to be able to beat the **** out of people just because they don't like them?
Don't you think that goes against a few of our rights there buddy? Seems to me your don't really believe in the constitution if you think cops should behave in such ways and not be punnished.
As I said before, this is not a problem if the States step up and do their part, as far as I am concerned they are following the will of the people.
Whim implies a rushed and impulse act, this is not either, I questioned your use of an obviously incorrect word to describe the issue in question.
And the punnishment at State level for a black who drank from a whites only water fountain was very severe at one time, but the Federal Government had to force the States to remove laws like that. States are not supposed to be completely seperate as if they are a Nation of their own, when they are messing up, someone must act, in this case it is the Federal Government.
As I said before, what if the State makes child molesting legal? You never said that would be wrong, you put the blame on the parents and said they should be forced to move away and I don't agree. If the States refuse to be reasonable, then they also force a reaction from the Federal Government.
Irrelivent? I don't think so, to me the severity of the problem is what determines how we should allocate our resources to a problem.
In this case the problem is large enough to require action. This action is only required because of the States who refuse to act.
I don't believe protecting children from these kinds of monsters is insignificant.
If there is a slippery slope it is caused by the States themselves who knowingly refuse to fix a problem and that direct refusal forces the hand of the Federal Government to act where the States refuse to act.
I don't say 'screw States rights', I say the States had every opportunity to fix this problem and failed, and that failure has forced the Federal Government to try and help in a problem caused by the States.
And still you refuse to admit that what you want means more child victims. This is the result of letting them free, if you can't at least be honest and admit that then I know your not taking this seriously.
I would say the same thing if the States were refusing to deal with crimes like murder, why let people get away with crimes, or get a slap on the wrist just because the States refuse to act or are too incompetent to act?
Also consider victims like Mary Jo Kopechne where there are lwas on the books and still the State refuses to enforce them, in this case because of political clout.
We can't always look at things from the point of view during those times, do you think at the time the Constitution was written they thought child molesters would go unpunnished in society? In their day the community would drag the molester off and kill him while the local law would pretend to not even notice the guy was no longer around. If you want to honor those times and beliefs then I am all for that my friend, but if you say that times have changed then we have to accept other changes as well.
So to stand on principle, you want pedophiles released so they can molest children some more?
How do we preserve freedoms in one way, and condemn a child to be molested to pay for those freedoms? I'm sorry, but our system was never intended to be manipulated in such ways to transofrm the peaceful masses into victims and to instead protect the criminals. We need to look past the words and see the intent of our founding fathers based on how the world worked at the time they created things like the Constitution.
What your asking for is a pervision of law where we stake out our children as victims to the wolves to serve an invisible master based on an incorrect view of how laws were intended to function in America. Our laws were intended to protect the innocent, what your advocating is screw the innocent and protect the criminal.
As I said before, the Government can already kill you "for cause", can't get any more power then that, the question here is the application of that power and under what terms it is reasonable to apply it.
By refusing to deal with this problem, the States are actually the ones who force the Federal Government to act.
I don't see anything moral about letting them go and put them on the streets one day earlier than we must. That one extra day may save one child from attack, and I would call that a huge victory.
Sure I want more, but at the same time I will not turn my back on any improvement, no matter how small, because that one improvement represents a lot of protected children.
No, your missing the point of how a law is created and what it is "supposed" to represent.
Laws are the written moral values of society (in general). Almost all of society wants these monsters to never have access to a child again, but our elected officials allow tiny segments of the PC crowd to muddy the waters of the debate and block change. The system has been perverted to protect the criminals, and as long as the system is so corrupt, there will be huge gaps that "NEED" to be filled.
I have said over and over again that I would be glad if the States would step up, but if the States refuse, then the problem still exists, and I want that problem fixed.
And while we are waiting for the change great harms like the healthcare law happen.
In this case the great harm is the many children who pay the price for what you want to happen.
timesjoke
Active Members
The short version:
Laws and changes to laws do not happen out of nowhere, there must be some driving force or need that causes it to happen.
In this case we have dangerious people who will attack children if released, we cannot honestly discuss the new laws without also considering "why" they were created, as unsavery as making new laws or rules may seem on the surface to some people, this would never have happened if not for that massive need to act. This has nothing to do with the Federal Government stepping on States rights, this is about the States giving away their rights by demonstrating their inability to deal with a big problem.
The scale of harm is the driving factor, the result of doing nothing is children being harmed, society being damaged at it's core because the laws of the land have been so distorted that they no longer protect the innocent but instead serve and protect the criminals. There is not one person who can honestly claim that our founding fathers had this perversion in mind way, way back then.
I cannot condemn children to be victims just to be able to say I have preserved a feeling of "purity" that is in reality a distortion of the intent of laws for society.
Laws and changes to laws do not happen out of nowhere, there must be some driving force or need that causes it to happen.
In this case we have dangerious people who will attack children if released, we cannot honestly discuss the new laws without also considering "why" they were created, as unsavery as making new laws or rules may seem on the surface to some people, this would never have happened if not for that massive need to act. This has nothing to do with the Federal Government stepping on States rights, this is about the States giving away their rights by demonstrating their inability to deal with a big problem.
The scale of harm is the driving factor, the result of doing nothing is children being harmed, society being damaged at it's core because the laws of the land have been so distorted that they no longer protect the innocent but instead serve and protect the criminals. There is not one person who can honestly claim that our founding fathers had this perversion in mind way, way back then.
I cannot condemn children to be victims just to be able to say I have preserved a feeling of "purity" that is in reality a distortion of the intent of laws for society.
timesjoke
Active Members
And I would agree, if not that inaction causes a lot of children to be victims. The reality of a failure to act is something most refuse to admit to, including RaE.
I don't want the Federal Government to do anything but what they "have" to do, and in this case, they have to because the States refuse to.
I have children, I will not advocate something that places children in harms way, each issue like this I have to imagine it is my kids who pay the price, not some faceless "other" child.
Chi
New member
TJ - You are wrong on this as on most things. You can't change the law as you see fit. Once you've served your time, you've served your time. As much as I would love for pedos to never be released, be castrated and/or cease to exist, you can't do that. What we DO need to do is extend the maximum of years that pedos be convicted for and give them the maximum. If they can't be rehabilitated, we should take the appropriate measures of dealing with them.