Is TERRORIST-HATER a pedophile?

[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 dickhead.

 

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 sex 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 sex 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 ass 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 sex 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 sex 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 ass 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 shit. I'm not a convicted felon, sex 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. :D

[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 ass 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 shit. I'm not a convicted felon, sex offender, or pedophile. These people forfeited the equality of their rights when they committed their crimes.

 

 

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

 

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 FUCKWIT 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. :D

 

 

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 FUCKWIT 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 bastard

 

[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 damn 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!

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

 

It's in the link that I provided. That is the Georgia Legislature website and is the current version of the law. If you want to see it, try reading it.

[ImWithStupid]

If we compared IQ scores, yours would make you look like a mongoloid in comparison to mine.

 

 

How could you possibly know that.

 

You haven't proven any intelligence on this topic.

 

Also, if your IQ result came from an on-line test, I'll bust a fucking gut laughing at you.

[ImWithStupid]

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

 

I never once called you a liberal. Are you capable of comprehending what you read?

 

Now that you mention it though, other than your view on terrorism, your views are almost always from the left.

 

Wow, will you look at that. More name calling.

[snafu]

Well after all this and MIRH still hasn’t weighed in yet. I went ahead a voted. In his twisted idea of right and wrong he's elected to protect the scum of the earth. I gave TH the benefit of the doubt. Don’t prove me wrong TH!

[ToriAllen]

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.

The constitution was written in a way that leaves it open to interpretation. That is the only reason it has lasted this long. It is possible to practice religion without attending an actual church. I do not attend church right now. Are you saying that I am not a Christian because I do not go to church? They can read the Bible and watch sermons on TV. There is no reason for them to be at a church around children. Are you going to fight for their right to be a youth minister next?

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.

Which field would that be? Law-related field means nothing to me. YOUR OPINION on this matter is based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the constitution, nothing more.

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.

I

[angie]

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.

 

The mere fact that this law dares to restrict church attendence makes it illegal. I am sorry you have your head up Sonny Purdue's nazi, neocon asshole. Should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such an obvious constitutional violation.

 

As to christian churches requiring attendence, I can tell you for a fact that you are wrong about that. I am a mormon and we require our members to come to church as often as they possibly can. As such, Neonazi Purdue's new law clearly interfears with some peoples right to practice their religon and THAT IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

He's Mormon. That explains everything.

And would you PLEASE learn how to spell TORI. That is really starting to bug me.

[builder]

Interesting lesson on a small part of the constitution.

 

On the paedophilia issue, there is nothing new under the sun regarding this illness, but what is new is the media grasping onto it with both hands, and using exposure to pressure court decisions.

 

Both protestant and catholic faiths have an abominable history of child abuse and outright paedophilia. Likewise in politics. America is nothing remarkable.

 

Our own Governor General succumbed to media pressure after he was exposed for covering up for Anglican church paedophiles. Several high-profile politicians, including one who hid behind a bible, have been convicted and sentenced.

 

My point is, how can anyone receive a fair trial when the media has biassed public opinion, spread untruths or even half-truths, and forever stained the reputation of one person who hasn't received the right to a fair and just trial?

 

There have been cases where the accused has called for a mistrial, because an unbiassed jury could not be found. Real criminals walking free because the media has decided to crucify someone in the press, fucking up the whole legal system by "trial by media".

 

The courts have the ability (or should have it) to subpoeana those who choose to avert the course of justice by intimidation/propaganda campaigns. The media, despite being left or right leaning, should not escape from this.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Nice to see TH can still go right off the deep end of the pool in 60 seconds or less. LMAO.

 

He does so excel at being a good Chew Toy.

 

[attach=full]945[/attach]

[hugo]

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

 

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

 

Actually. I am a paleo-con when it comes to military intervention. You are a fuckin' moron who does not understand what a neo-con is. You simply label everyone who disagrees with you a neo-con. I doubt if you are a veteran. there are certain minimal intelligence levels that must be met to enter the military. They are pretty low... but way above your level.

 

TH is a liberal. He is just too fuckin' stupid to know he is one.

[ToriAllen]

On the paedophilia issue, there is nothing new under the sun regarding this illness, but what is new is the media grasping onto it with both hands, and using exposure to pressure court decisions.

I don't think anyone is claiming this to be a new issue. It does, however, seem to be much more prevalent now.

Both protestant and catholic faiths have an abominable history of child abuse and outright paedophilia. Likewise in politics. America is nothing remarkable.

Predators will try to place themselves in a position of trust simply to make it easier to find prey. This, also, is nothing new.

Our own Governor General succumbed to media pressure after he was exposed for covering up for Anglican church paedophiles. Several high-profile politicians, including one who hid behind a bible, have been convicted and sentenced.

How did he

[builder]

I don't think anyone is claiming this to be a new issue. It does, however, seem to be much more prevalent now.

 

Not at all. If anything, exposure is leading to a lessening of the occurrence of the crime, and more victims feeling empowered to expose their attackers. What you are experiencing is more public exposure of a common malaise.

 

Predators will try to place themselves in a position of trust simply to make it easier to find prey. This, also, is nothing new.

 

Agreed. My beef is that those in a position to expose offenders have often used their power to cover up transgressions in the past.

 

How did he ‘succumb’ to pressure? By doing what should have been done to begin with? Just curious.

 

One of many links, Tori. He was a cad and an apologist to the last minute.

 

There are so many trials and court cases in every part of this country, it would be impossible to report on them all. The only ones we hear about of the celebrities and the politicians. The media doesn’t bother with Average Joe Molester.

 

Agreed, unless it's a serial molester that the courts have let free to reoffend.

 

Like I said…There are too many people here, even in the small towns, for the media to report on them all, or for the general public to notice. I think there is a greater problem with criminals going to trial and being let off on a technicality, or being released back onto the street after a few years, unreformed, and ready to molest another child.

 

Agreed. Time inside does nothing to the psyche of an offender, except maybe to increase the original problem.

 

Alright, are you even talking about the topic anymore? How much have you had to drink?

 

Jober as a sudge. Who's asking? And if you think the media is a law unto themselves, in that they can try someone by slander and libel, then what drug are you on? I want some.