Is TERRORIST-HATER a pedophile?

[ImWithStupid]

You are wrong, IWS, that law DOES violate the constitution because it violates peoples right to worship (to attend church). So, yes, it does violate the constitution. I am sorry if you neo-cons are not big on individual rights.
People have the right to go to church and the government cannot take that right from them.

I'm sorry, IWS, but you are a neo-con.

Word for word...

First Amendment to the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Tell me where this says that you have the right to go to church. The pedophiles can still practice their religion.

Prohibits registered *** offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate." It also makes it illegal for child *** offenders or sexually dangerous predators to loiter in those areas.

loiter means "To stand idly about; linger aimlessly." To the best of my knowledge this doesn't even prevent attendance. That means there is "no rights violation" and your entire argument is a moot point, and while we're calling names this would make you a NEO-MORON.

 

[hugo]

TH does not even know what a neo-con is. Basically, neo-con philosophy concentrates on spreading American ideas and values throughout the globe. Neo-cons do not care much about domestic policy issues. This is a domestic policy issue. There are two major constitutional issues. The deprivation of private property rights and adding punishment to a criminals crime after his sentencing.

 

[ToriAllen]

Who is being protected by felons not being able to vote.

I would think anyone stupid enough to commit a felony has proven themselves incapable of making a rational decision and therefore should not be allowed to vote. Stupid people are more likely to elect other stupid people, because they can relate.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I would think anyone stupid enough to commit a felony has proven themselves incapable of making a rational decision and therefore should not be allowed to vote. Stupid people are more likely to elect other stupid people, because they can relate.

I understand the reason behind it. I was just illustrating how the limit of the movement of pedophiles, to protect society, makes more sense then losing the right to vote, when comparing the imediate impact of the consequences of not limiting that movement, on society.

 

[ToriAllen]

I understand the reason behind it. I was just illustrating how the limit of the movement of pedophiles, to protect society, makes more sense then losing the right to vote, when comparing the imediate impact of the consequences of not limiting that movement, on society.

I know, but I had to say something.

I see nothing wrong with this law. The law does not add a punishment to a specific criminal. It is simply a restriction on where all child molesters can hang out to watch little kids.

 

[TerroristHater]

You quoted me and replied to him...What is that all about?
They still have a right to worship, just not at a church where children will be. I would suspect the motives of any predator that wants to go to church.

The government can, absolutely, keep pedophile away from children. The sickos can worship from the comfort of their own home.

Is neo-con the only term you know? What is a neo-con TH? Do you even know, or do you used that term loosely to encompass anyone who disagrees with you.

They do have a right to be in a church. The governemnt CANNOT make laws that restrict the ESTABLISHMENT OR PRACTICE THEREOF. That means that no laws restricing church attendence are legal.

I have a degree in a law-related field, Torrie, I have researched this, Florida has a similar law that failed to stay on the books until it was changed in a manner which excluded churches.

Neocons have a very hard time understanding that they cannot violate the constitution and/or peoples rights. While I recognize this a law made with the best of intentions, I can tell you for a given fact that this law is in violation of the 1st ammendment of the constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I tried to explain to MRIH, these types of laws are never a good idea because they are used as a launching point. It started in Florida (another neo-con state) and it spread to Georgia.

Read the 1st ammendment of the U.S. Constitution and carefully weigh the body of the text. It specifically forbids laws being made, which interfere with establishment or practice of religon.

Neo-cons do not believe in individual rights and liberties and they do not believe in freedom. Neo-cons/neo-libs are a collection of indivduals who were spawned from british loyalist seed and should've gone back to england. They never accepted that America is a FREE COUNTRY. These people honestly believe that Americans should be RULED rather then governed.

The original republicans were not known as republicans but rather as "FEDERALISTS" and these people were so hated by the people in the original colonies that there were only two elected (George Washington and John Quincy Adams). After they learned that their fellow colonists would never elect a federalist these people changed their party monaker to "REPUBLICAN".

I am sorry that so many of you on here are a confused in the area of constitutional law. I am sorry that MRIH is so rude (he's cool most of the time) as to call me a chumo simply because I stood up for the rights of ALL AMERICANS. Some Americans are bad people, but that doesn't mean they are not entitled to practice religon in anyway they chose or to attend whatever church they so choose.

These laws are the result of exsessive neo-con interference in state affiars. It's a sad truth, but it is a truth nonetheless.

Of all people, Torrie, you should be aware of how important it is to stand up to any governing body that attempts to steal essential liberty from its citizens. You come from a military family and I expect you to understand the meaning of words like sacrifice, honor, and liberty. If you don't know their true meaning yet, you will once you get to boot camp.

 

[TerroristHater]

TH does not even know what a neo-con is. Basically, neo-con philosophy concentrates on spreading American ideas and values throughout the globe. Neo-cons do not care much about domestic policy issues. This is a domestic policy issue. There are two major constitutional issues. The deprivation of private property rights and adding punishment to a criminals crime after his sentencing.

Oh look... another quote from a texan neo-con ********.

Again, Texas neo-cons are nothing more then uneducated redneck hicks that figured out how to vote.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Why have you not addressed this yet.

Prohibits registered *** offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate." It also makes it illegal for child *** offenders or sexually dangerous predators to loiter in those areas.

loiter means "To stand idly about; linger aimlessly." To the best of my knowledge this doesn't even prevent attendance. That means there is "no rights violation" and your entire argument is a moot point.

I have a college degree in this area and I know I am correct.

Or didn't they teach you how to read and comprehend in college?

Admit it. You're wrong.

You went off half cocked and didn't even read the law. You only read the interpretation by the liberal lawyers that are behind the lawsuit. The wording of this law based on common definition, (which is how laws are supposed to be interpreted, unless specific language says different) does not limit attendance to church, it only limits hanging around churches.

 

[TerroristHater]

1.) Attending church is not the same as loitering. Again, you stand corrected. Also, I had no idea that existed. Tell me what state's statutes you took that from and I will look into it.

I'm not wrong, you're wrong. That law below, whatever it is, whereever it is, is illegal in that it restricts chuch attendence, which has been the crux of my entire argument. You have not nor will you ever find a way to convince me that such a rule is a violation of the 1st Ammendment. When it is reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and you can bet your *** it will be reviewed by the USSC, it will be overturned.

Have you noticed how quick you are to forfit essential liberty for a little bit of TEMPORARY security?

Why have you not addressed this yet.
Quote:

Prohibits registered *** offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate." It also makes it illegal for child *** offenders or sexually dangerous predators to loiter in those areas.

loiter means "To stand idly about; linger aimlessly." To the best of my knowledge this doesn't even prevent attendance. That means there is "no rights violation" and your entire argument is a moot point.

Or didn't they teach you how to read and comprehend in college?

Admit it you're wrong.

You went off half cocked and didn't even read the law. You only read the interpretation by the liberal lawyers that are behind the lawsuit. The wording of this law based on common definition, (which is how laws are supposed to be interpreted, unless specific language says different) does not limit attendance to church, hanging around churches.

 

[ImWithStupid]

1.) Attending church is not the same as loitering. Again, you stand corrected.

No I don't. You just stated my point exactly. The law says that they can't loiter (see previous definition of loiter that I supplied to you) around churches. It doesn't say they can't be there for a purpose.

Tell me what state's statutes you took that from and I will look into it.

HB 1059, the very law that you are so adamantly arguing about is where I got that quote, which just proves that you are talking out of your liberal *** and just regurgitating what you read in the lawsuit article.

http://wwww.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb1059.htm

I'm not wrong, you're wrong. That law below, whatever it is, whereever it is, is illegal in that it restricts chuch attendence,

No it doesn't. See above explanation on loitering.

Have you noticed how quick you are to forfit essential liberty for a little bit of TEMPORARY security?

I haven't forfeited ****. I'm not a convicted felon, *** offender, or pedophile. These people forfeited the equality of their rights when they committed their crimes.

 

[ImWithStupid]

TH does not even know what a neo-con is. Basically, neo-con philosophy concentrates on spreading American ideas and values throughout the globe. Neo-cons do not care much about domestic policy issues. This is a domestic policy issue. There are two major constitutional issues. The deprivation of private property rights and adding punishment to a criminals crime after his sentencing.

Here's a link to a nice web-article that talks of the history of the term "neocon".

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html

It's also a liberal definition, not a conservative downplay of the word.

 

[snafu]

Here's a link to a nice web-article that talks of the history of the term "neocon".
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html

It's also a liberal definition, not a conservative downplay of the word.

Perfect! I think we did need to clarify that even though most of would know that.

.... and while we're calling names this would make you a NEO-MORON.

TH even you gotta think that one was funny.

 

[TerroristHater]

No I don't. You just stated my point exactly. The law says that they can't loiter (see previous definition of loiter that I supplied to you) around churches. It doesn't say they can't be there for a purpose.


HB 1059, the very law that you are so adamantly arguing about is where I got that quote, which just proves that you are talking out of your liberal *** and just regurgitating what you read in the lawsuit article.

http://wwww.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb1059.htm

No it doesn't. See above explanation on loitering.

I haven't forfeited ****. I'm not a convicted felon, *** offender, or pedophile. These people forfeited the equality of their rights when they committed their crimes.

1.) I AM NOT A LIBERAL YOU ******* NEO-CON SON OF A *****

2.) THAT LAW IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION....EVEN IF YOUR NEO-CON FUCKHOLES DO NOT LIKE IT.

3.) THAT LAW SAYS THEY CANNOT BE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE CHRUCH, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES IT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. ERRGO... YOU ARE DEFEATED, BLIND ******* NEOCON COCKMONKEY WHO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

 

[TerroristHater]

Perfect! I think we did need to clarify that even though most of would know that.

and while we're calling names this would make you a NEO-MORON

TH even you gotta think that one was funny.

It is midly entertaining.

 

[snafu]

Okay your point is they can’t go to church. The operative word is loitering. I think if the pedo were to confront the pastor, bishop etc and let them know who they were and their past I think they wouldn’t have a problem. We have every right to protect our children even in church.

 

[ImWithStupid]

3.) THAT LAW SAYS THEY CANNOT BE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE CHRUCH, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES IT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. ERRGO... YOU ARE DEFEATED, BLIND ******* NEOCON COCKMONKEY WHO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

What's a "CHRUCH"?

Name calling. The last resort of a defeated moron.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Okay your point is they can’t go to church. I also think the operative word is loitering. I think if the pedo were to confront the pastor, bishop etc and let them know who they were and their past I think they wouldn’t have a problem. We have every right to protect our children even in church.

I'm glad that the whole loitering thing makes sense to the intelligent members of the audience.

If TH were to research he would see that this was language that was added to make the law fit within the Constitution and wasn't in the original draft.

 

[TerroristHater]

What's a "CHRUCH"?
Name calling. The last resort of a defeated moron.

"Chruch" is a typo... you silly *******

 

[TerroristHater]

I'm glad that the whole loitering thing makes sense to the intelligent members of the audience.
If TH were to research he would see that this was language that was added to make the law fit within the Constitution and wasn't in the original draft.

I will believe that when I see the completed law in its entirety. Until then I will assume it's just another neo-con attempt at stealing liberty.

 

[TerroristHater]

I'm glad that the whole loitering thing makes sense to the intelligent members of the audience.
If TH were to research he would see that this was language that was added to make the law fit within the Constitution and wasn't in the original draft.

If we compared IQ scores, yours would be incredible and mine would be non-existent because I was too busy picking my nose to even finish the **** test. Besides all of you can tell how brilliant I am by my spelling, use of language, and colorful metaphor. Cough Cough

Also, I'm so sensitive about "Rep" points that now that everybody is giving me bad rep, I turned it off so that they can't ding me anymore. I cannot handle criticism. It makes me want to throw myself onto the floor and kick and scream myself to sleep. Whah!