Clarence Thomas right again

[RegisteredAndEducated]

TJ you apply the law in a pick and choose manner. You can't be objective, and therefore seem incapable of debate. I hate pedos. I don't feel they offer anything to society, however, why have any laws at all if we only apply them at whim? Make pedophilia a capital crime with life imprisonment etc..or a lifetime of painful brain development, scientific studies so we can better understand the perverts brain..whatever. If we have a law that says you did something horrible, and this is the time you serve, and he has done that..then..to me..applying additional sentences is an abuse of power. Plain and simple.

 

You make me laugh sometimes em, you really do, in some ways your very sweet and nice and other ways your pretty insulting.

 

I never pick and choose the law, I see the law for what it is supposed to be, a representation of what society wants and desires for their moral stands. You see the law as the beginning and the end of your own morals, I do not, so that is why I can agree with some laws and disagree with other laws when they fly in the face of what the communities want while you seem stuck in agreeing with whatever moral stand is fed to you.

 

Look at it this way, if a state made molesting children legal, would you still support their legal position? Would you still say the Federal Government should take a hands off approach? Was the Federal Government wrong to strike down slavery laws in the States that still allowed the ownership of slaves?

 

Your completely missing the real point emkay. If the States want to release a monster onto the streets, should the federal Government have the power to step in and stop it?

 

I say yes.

 

And the real point of a debate is to discuss our views, not to put me down just because I don't agree with your views.

 

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]

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.

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.

[emkay64]

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.

[hugo]

I say have ultrasounds to see if the fetus looks like a pedophile. If it does; kill it.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

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.

 

Again, if protecting soceity from danger is not already a responsibility of Government, what is?

 

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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"?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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.

 

i agree with this

[timesjoke]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

How much more do you want them to have? They can "only" take a life if you are a criminal.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Nobody has to pay this price.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

No parent can be 100% watchful of their children, hell 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.

 

 

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.

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]

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

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 civil rights violations had the State been successful in imposing their own punishments but the State 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 creatures back on the streets.

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.

 

 

How much more do you want them to have? They can "only" take a life if you are a criminal.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 them 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.

 

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 bitch 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

Nobody has to pay this price.

 

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.

 

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...

 

 

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.

 

No parent can be 100% watchful of their children, hell 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 done 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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

Is that not what I am doing right now?

no... it's not. You're supporting government growth and their gaining of power.

 

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.

 

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]

 

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 arguing in circles the destruction of a child's life, and this is unacceptable.

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

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]

 

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 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.

 

 

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.

 

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 crap 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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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 bitch 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

 

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...

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

no... it's not. You're supporting government growth and their gaining of power.

 

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.

 

 

 

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]

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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]

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.

[emkay64]

You are "unsavery". All y'all!!

[ToriAllen]

Like I said, the law approaches the problem from the wrong end. Change the sentencing phase if the sicko's aren't getting enough time. But you can't just pick and choose who serves the sentence that is given, and who will be held indefinately. That isn't right.

[timesjoke]

Like I said, the law approaches the problem from the wrong end. Change the sentencing phase if the sicko's aren't getting enough time. But you can't just pick and choose who serves the sentence that is given, and who will be held indefinately. That isn't right.

 

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]

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.

[timesjoke]

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.

It is not a matter of how I see fit, it is how the majority of Americans feel these monsters should be handled and if the local States are doing their part to make that happen.

 

 

In this case they are not.

 

 

The law is "supposed" to protect the innocent, if the States refuse to protect the innocent I will accept the help of the federal Government as a sad but welcome alternative to doing nothing.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

This post is going to be ridiculously long and pointless (because we all know that I'm talking to a brick wall...). Well brick... meet sledge hammer...

 

I'm going to post a key...

 

Things in RED are things that DO NOT APPLY to this post at all.

Things in GREEN are things that are REALLY STUPID and pointless.

Things in BLUE are where he apparently PURPOSEFULLY IGNORED statements to continue arguing for the sake of argument.

The ones in PINK are just absolutely wrong IMO... Asking for big government? WTF???

If more than one color applies, I'll try and use the color that is most obvious.

 

 

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 have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.

If you don't like how your state is run. Move somewhere else. That's what I was saying. Move somewhere else or fix it... How hard is that to understand?

 

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.

 

You mean how is taking your tax money from a state going to make them change the way they do things? Are you really asking this?

 

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.

 

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 crap 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 punished.

(he hit a small rainbow in that one)

 

I'm saying that from what I've seen/heard, the officers did what they had to do to protect themselves and others from RK's attacks. I don't personally believe that the force they used was excessive.

(I marked my words as red because they don't apply to this post, but I typed them in answer to his post.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

And that's what the states should do, the will of the people. The FED do not need more authority to override what the states decide to do, unless it's a mandate or the law changes. I'm against government expansion and taking away rights and freedoms.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

This is a whim. An impulsive act. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Pedophile". The word I used was appropriate and in context.

 

 

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.

 

And the punishment 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 separate 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.

 

You are talking in if's there guy... why would a state make child molestation legal? That's stupid. I said that if that happened, that the parents should protect themselves and their children. And that they should hit that particular state right in the pocketbook...

 

 

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 bitch 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.

 

Irrelevant? 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.

 

What you still fail to understand is that this is not about child molesters. This is about giving the federal government an inch and them taking a mile, or 10... The buzz word in the particular case was Pedophile, but this law WILL cross that line and become a part of how they do business.

 

As noble as protecting the children sounds, it's really not a part of this argument.

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

Maybe you don't understand the concept I'm referring to when I say 'Slippery Slope'. I kind of hinted at it when I said... "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile."

 

 

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...

 

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 laws on the books and still the State refuses to enforce them, in this case because of political clout.

 

You never answered any of my questions. And I do not want more child victims. You backwards logic and twisting phrases will not push me into a corner.

 

In this case, the states is not refusing to deal with the crime... where did you get that? They are punishing these animals. The thing we agree on is that we want the punishment to be changed. I agree with that, change the punishment, the legal way.

 

You bring up a case of corruption. That has nothing to do with the state... it has everything to do with politics, family connections, and corruption.

 

 

(to be continued)

[RegisteredAndEducated]

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.

 

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 unpunished 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.

 

Are you really going with the "The Constitution of the United States is old and outdated" argument? The founders built it so that it would be a growing, living document... Why don't you like the constitution? They setup a way to create new laws and procedures... It's the perfect, fair, ruling document.

 

And to the last line.. in... orange... huh???

 

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.

 

So to stand on principle, you want pedophiles released so they can molest children some more?

 

Way to twist that all up. No, I want people that have served the prescribed time to be released when their time is finished.

I want pedophiles to be taken apart, while alive, piece by piece and sold off for spare parts.

 

 

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 transform 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 pervsion 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.

 

Wow... you're so wrong again... I don't want any child to be molested. That's ludicrous... We can do both preserve freedoms and protect the populace at the same time. Follow the processes setup for changing the punishments for crimes. I don't want to protect criminals. I want to protect citizens, and I want to be fair to everyone. Again... The constitution is setup to be a growing, living document... it changes with the times.

 

 

no... it's not. You're supporting government growth and their gaining of power.

 

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.

 

They can kill you if they deem your crime is so bad that you do not deserve to live. That is a law that is set up already. That's not the whim of some federal worker who doesn't like you. That's a long (too long) process that requires ALOT of work and court appearances. It should be the punishment for pedophilia, but as of yet, it is not.

 

The state is not forcing the fed to do anything. There are laws in place... If they want them changed, they should change them. (get that yet?)

 

 

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]

 

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.

 

You are so backwards. You want to take away freedom from everyone just to punish a pedo, instead of taking the correct legal path and taking away the pedo's freedom... like i said... backwards.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

The law represents the will of the people and a moral code. Society should impress upon the lawmakers, and the ones who set the punishments, to change how pedophiles are treated once convicted. But don't just give the government knee-jerk power to extend punishments on a whim.

The criminal justice system is not corrupted to the point of protecting the criminal... that's stupid. If you want to start a new thread of how corrupt the system is, feel free, but stick to the topic here please.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

That is so heart wrenching... Seriously... If you have a problem with the system, fix it... Don't rely on the government to fix it for you.

[timesjoke]

Very pretty, really, very nice looking so much so you very successfully draw attention away from the facts very well.

 

 

Let's make this easier because me letting you explode this into such a big mess it has been easier for you to dodge the real point........Victims.

 

 

 

Yes, normally I am Very Conservative, I almost always lean to States rights and away from the Federal Government doing things. But as much as you cry about how unfair it is to include the results of a hands off policy, I still have to say the result of hands off is more molested and killed children IN THIS CASE, and no matter how many names you call me I will never knowingly support any action that places a child in harms way.

 

 

 

Your ranting at me over and over about how the "proper" way of doing something is, and the part your missing is I agree, I agree that there are proper ways, but up to now the proper way is not being followed and while we are waiting for the proper way to work, who pays that price? No matter how idealistic I may get against the Federal Government and it's power I still cannot fight against something that protects a child and I cannot fight against something that I know without a shadow of doubt will hurt children.

 

 

 

So in summery, "IF" the States do their job and protect the people, especially the weakest members of society, then I am happy. "IF" not, then as much as I hate the source, I will not turn away help where I can find it.

 

 

 

To offer a very simple anology:

 

Your crossing the desert for sport and you hired a guy (named 'States') to guide and supply your trip. Part of that guys responsibility is to have plenty of water for everyone on the expedition but at the half way point you discover that while he did supply enough water to get you this far, your now out of water. Ranting and raving at the hired guide is certainly your right and clearly you could even sue the guide for failing to meet his responsibilities as agreed, but right now you need water to survive. So as your sitting there dying of thirst a small carivan of traders are comming and the leader (named Federal Government) offers you some water.

 

Do you refuse the water because it is not 'Federal Governments' job to supply you with water?

.

.

 

Have a nice day

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Let me start by saying that it's very convenient that you skipped my post and didn't address any points that I made, it's obvious that you are unable to defend your position against them. Way to dodge!!

 

Very pretty, really, very nice looking so much so you very successfully draw attention away from the facts very well.

 

 

Let's make this easier because me letting you explode this into such a big mess it has been easier for you to dodge the real point........Victims.

 

This may be what you're point is, but the point of the thread is not victims. The point of the thread is the government overreaching and stepping on state laws without precedent (or setting a dangerous new precedent, however you want to look at it). If you've been arguing about victims, you're on the wrong thread. Thus, I'm addressing the facts, you should learn to do that as well. That's a hell of a dodge cover, blame your dodging the issue on my supposed "dodge". Grade A hero move... You should get into politics (but God forbid you get elected, you have the spine of a waffle).

 

 

Yes, normally I am Very Conservative, I almost always lean to States rights and away from the Federal Government doing things. But as much as you cry about how unfair it is to include the results of a hands off policy, I still have to say the result of hands off is more molested and killed children IN THIS CASE, and no matter how many names you call me I will never knowingly support any action that places a child in harms way.

 

First the statement in red... So you're normally conservative, but you are willing to bend and break when it suits you? How very interesting. Sounds less like conservative, and more like flip-flopper.

This is not a hands off policy... Where do you get that from? There are laws in place now (that are being enforced by the states). If the federal government wants to change the laws, or the punishments, they should follow the proper process... NOT change it on a case-by-case whim.

 

 

Your ranting at me over and over about how the "proper" way of doing something is, and the part your missing is I agree, I agree that there are proper ways, but up to now the proper way is not being followed and while we are waiting for the proper way to work, who pays that price? No matter how idealistic I may get against the Federal Government and it's power I still cannot fight against something that protects a child and I cannot fight against something that I know without a shadow of doubt will hurt children.

 

So you are saying that you have no backbone and no ideals. You have no ground to stand on because you have no base beliefs. Way to go. Kill any credibility that you had by not standing by what you claim to believe. shm...

 

 

So in summery, "IF" the States do their job and protect the people, especially the weakest members of society, then I am happy. "IF" not, then as much as I hate the source, I will not turn away help where I can find it.

 

 

To offer a very simple anology:

 

Your crossing the desert for sport and you hired a guy (named 'States') to guide and supply your trip. Part of that guys responsibility is to have plenty of water for everyone on the expedition but at the half way point you discover that while he did supply enough water to get you this far, your now out of water. Ranting and raving at the hired guide is certainly your right and clearly you could even sue the guide for failing to meet his responsibilities as agreed, but right now you need water to survive. So as your sitting there dying of thirst a small carivan of traders are comming and the leader (named Federal Government) offers you some water.

 

Do you refuse the water because it is not 'Federal Governments' job to supply you with water?

.

.

 

Have a nice day

 

 

 

You can't claim to hate the source and then accept help... Your analogy is absolutely bogus. Is FG State's boss? Do they live and work together? Does your accepting water from FG involve killing States? Would you be forced into slavery after you accepted the water? BOGUS.

 

If you want a more accurate description, take this analogy...

 

You are in the desert, and you are dying of thirst. God has told you that if you suffer this death, that your sins will be wiped clean and you will be invited into heaven. All you have to do is have one canteen of water, and you will live, but your soul will forever burn in eternal hell... The devil comes by with a canteen of pure, cool, clear water from the mountain springs.

Do you take the water? Knowing that it means that you will live for now, but your soul will suffer for an eternity... Or do you reject the devil and accept a painful death now for eternal life in heaven.

 

You are a God fearing Christian, right?

.

.

 

You Have A Nice Day

[timesjoke]

Let me start by saying that it's very convenient that you skipped my post and didn't address any points that I made, it's obvious that you are unable to defend your position against them. Way to dodge!!

 

You used your color code and admitted that you were not responding to things you felt were irrelivent first my friend, you dodged about 97% of my direct points and questions so why are you now crying about me not going point by point when I clearly answered 100% of your questions in one reply? If you think I did not answer a question then ask it again and I will gladly address it because I have never dodged a single thing intentionally, not one time of ever being on this board, I am human though and I could possibly do it by mistake.

 

 

This may be what you're point is, but the point of the thread is not victims. The point of the thread is the government overreaching and stepping on state laws without precedent (or setting a dangerous new precedent, however you want to look at it). If you've been arguing about victims, you're on the wrong thread. Thus, I'm addressing the facts, you should learn to do that as well. That's a hell of a dodge cover, blame your dodging the issue on my supposed "dodge". Grade A hero move... You should get into politics (but God forbid you get elected, you have the spine of a waffle).

 

Why the personal attacks?

 

Without the victims, no new rule to protect the victims. It is illogical to try and discuss this new case law without also including the "REASON" it was created.

 

 

 

First the statement in red... So you're normally conservative, but you are willing to bend and break when it suits you? How very interesting. Sounds less like conservative, and more like flip-flopper.

This is not a hands off policy... Where do you get that from? There are laws in place now (that are being enforced by the states). If the federal government wants to change the laws, or the punishments, they should follow the proper process... NOT change it on a case-by-case whim.

 

There are laws in place now "THAT DON'T WORK". Hense the need for the new rules, without these failures, no need for the new rules, you keep dodging the failures that force the changes, that is the real problem.

 

 

Your getting all upset over the symptoms and ignoring the problem.

 

 

I am concerned with results more than any single concept of politics.

 

 

So you are saying that you have no backbone and no ideals. You have no ground to stand on because you have no base beliefs. Way to go. Kill any credibility that you had by not standing by what you claim to believe. shm...

 

If I have to condone the rape and killing of a innocent child to meet up with "YOUR" idea of having beliefs or credibility I am glad to dissapoint you.

 

Why do you have to attack me as a person just because I don't agree with you? My morals and beliefs go deeper than a political ideology, my base is rooted in what is right, not what will make some guy on the internet happy.

 

 

 

 

You can't claim to hate the source and then accept help... Your analogy is absolutely bogus. Is FG State's boss? Do they live and work together? Does your accepting water from FG involve killing States? Would you be forced into slavery after you accepted the water? BOGUS.

 

No, your trying to over complicate the issue because "YOU" don't like where the help is comming from, but the reality is, no metter where the water comes from, you need the water. By clinging to principle, you die, if you believe your death is better than compramise then fine, that is your choice, but don't condemn every child in America to die or be molested for "YOUR" blind following of a principle.

 

 

If you want a more accurate description, take this analogy...

 

You are in the desert, and you are dying of thirst. God has told you that if you suffer this death, that your sins will be wiped clean and you will be invited into heaven. All you have to do is have one canteen of water, and you will live, but your soul will forever burn in eternal hell... The devil comes by with a canteen of pure, cool, clear water from the mountain springs.

Do you take the water? Knowing that it means that you will live for now, but your soul will suffer for an eternity... Or do you reject the devil and accept a painful death now for eternal life in heaven.

 

You are a God fearing Christian, right?

.

.

 

You Have A Nice Day

 

Completely off the point, accepting help from the Federal Government will not condemn anyone to Hell, just like the Federal Government stepping in to convice the Rodney King cops did not spell out the end of the world. If there is a gap that needs filling, someone needs to fill that gap. As I have clearly pointed out, none of this happens if the States had done their jobs just like the AZ law would never have been considered if the Feds had done their jobs in stopping illegal immigration.

 

 

And every day is a great day

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Let me start by saying that it's very convenient that you skipped my post and didn't address any points that I made, it's obvious that you are unable to defend your position against them. Way to dodge!!

 

You used your color code and admitted that you were not responding to things you felt were irrelivent first my friend, you dodged about 97% of my direct points and questions so why are you now crying about me not going point by point when I clearly answered 100% of your questions in one reply? If you think I did not answer a question then ask it again and I will gladly address it because I have never dodged a single thing intentionally, not one time of ever being on this board, I am human though and I could possibly do it by mistake.

 

Maybe you need to read... The color code was to keep from repeating myself with words. When i put something in a certain color, I was addressing it. I didn't dodge a single relevant point. Hell, I didn't dodge a single IRRELEVANT point.

you fail at muddying the waters even more.

 

 

This may be what you're point is, but the point of the thread is not victims. The point of the thread is the government overreaching and stepping on state laws without precedent (or setting a dangerous new precedent, however you want to look at it). If you've been arguing about victims, you're on the wrong thread. Thus, I'm addressing the facts, you should learn to do that as well. That's a hell of a dodge cover, blame your dodging the issue on my supposed "dodge". Grade A hero move... You should get into politics (but God forbid you get elected, you have the spine of a waffle).

 

Why the personal attacks?

 

Without the victims, no new rule to protect the victims. It is illogical to try and discuss this new case law without also including the "REASON" it was created.

 

I never attacked you. I stated my personal opinion based on your argument here so far. Nice try though.

What you're saying the reason this law was created is what is irrelevant in this discussion. It doesn't matter what the crime was. The reason that this is a problem is that the government is grabbing power and freedom and taking it from the citizens. One little bit at the time. The reason this was created was to extend the sentence of someone who has met the terms of their release. If the fed wants to make those terms higher, they should do it the right way. Not on a whim.

 

 

First the statement in red... So you're normally conservative, but you are willing to bend and break when it suits you? How very interesting. Sounds less like conservative, and more like flip-flopper.

This is not a hands off policy... Where do you get that from? There are laws in place now (that are being enforced by the states). If the federal government wants to change the laws, or the punishments, they should follow the proper process... NOT change it on a case-by-case whim.

 

There are laws in place now "THAT DON'T WORK". Hense the need for the new rules, without these failures, no need for the new rules, you keep dodging the failures that force the changes, that is the real problem.

 

 

Your getting all upset over the symptoms and ignoring the problem.

 

 

I am concerned with results more than any single concept of politics.

 

If the laws do not work, fix them the right way. Don't go in and change them at will on a whim. Follow the process that is set up to protect us from an oppressive government. To do otherwise is counter productive, and places us further into the bonds of slavery.

 

You are concerned for result at any cost? When would the cost be too great? When a man is locked up for eating red meat? or meat at all? When does it end, and who decides?

 

 

So you are saying that you have no backbone and no ideals. You have no ground to stand on because you have no base beliefs. Way to go. Kill any credibility that you had by not standing by what you claim to believe. shm...

 

If I have to condone the rape and killing of a innocent child to meet up with "YOUR" idea of having beliefs or credibility I am glad to dissapoint you.

 

Why do you have to attack me as a person just because I don't agree with you? My morals and beliefs go deeper than a political ideology, my base is rooted in what is right, not what will make some guy on the internet happy.

 

I'm not attacking you. I was taking what you were saying, and telling you what it sounded like. I never condoned the rape and or killing of children or any other innocent American Citizen. I believe in my country having integrity. And once you lie or change the rules as you go along, you are losing integrity. If you don't care about America's integrity (or integrity in general), that's your prerogative I suppose, but don't expect anyone to agree with your points, and do expect to lose any claim to the moral high-ground that you might have had.

 

 

You can't claim to hate the source and then accept help... Your analogy is absolutely bogus. Is FG State's boss? Do they live and work together? Does your accepting water from FG involve killing States? Would you be forced into slavery after you accepted the water? BOGUS.

 

No, your trying to over complicate the issue because "YOU" don't like where the help is comming from, but the reality is, no metter where the water comes from, you need the water. By clinging to principle, you die, if you believe your death is better than compramise then fine, that is your choice, but don't condemn every child in America to die or be molested for "YOUR" blind following of a principle.

 

I'm not trying to complicate anything. I understand exactly where you are coming from and I think your analogy is absolutely off base. I never said in your analogy that you should not take the water, but there is no consequence. In real life, if we accept this ruling without speaking out and trying to change the real problem, then we are accepting the very heavy and possibly deadly consequence of giving the government more control over our daily lives.

 

I am certainly not condemning every child in America to die or be molested, stop being a drama queen. I am simply preserving the freedoms that every productive American citizen deserves.

 

 

If you want a more accurate description, take this analogy...

 

You are in the desert, and you are dying of thirst. God has told you that if you suffer this death, that your sins will be wiped clean and you will be invited into heaven. All you have to do is have one canteen of water, and you will live, but your soul will forever burn in eternal hell... The devil comes by with a canteen of pure, cool, clear water from the mountain springs.

Do you take the water? Knowing that it means that you will live for now, but your soul will suffer for an eternity... Or do you reject the devil and accept a painful death now for eternal life in heaven.

 

You are a God fearing Christian, right?

.

.

 

You Have A Nice Day

 

Completely off the point, accepting help from the Federal Government will not condemn anyone to Hell, just like the Federal Government stepping in to convice the Rodney King cops did not spell out the end of the world. If there is a gap that needs filling, someone needs to fill that gap. As I have clearly pointed out, none of this happens if the States had done their jobs just like the AZ law would never have been considered if the Feds had done their jobs in stopping illegal immigration.

 

 

And every day is a great day

 

My analogy was EXACTLY the point. Giving the Federal Government unlimited power to change or control the daily lives of the citizens is like taking the water, you are hoping for a temporary fix but condemning yourself to pain.

This is not the rodney king thread. Go there to discuss him.

The states are doing the job that they have been given. Again, if the fed wants the punishments to be stricter, they should enact stricter rules. period.

[timesjoke]

 

Maybe you need to read...

 

Maybe you need to get your head out of your anus......see I can play that way too, is that wat you want? Toss nasty insults and stuff back and forth because I dare not to agree with "YOUR" view? Can we not agree to dissagree without the emotional outbursts?

 

I don't treat you that way so why do you feel compelled to treat me that way?

 

 

The color code was to keep from repeating myself with words. When i put something in a certain color, I was addressing it. I didn't dodge a single relevant point. Hell, I didn't dodge a single IRRELEVANT point.

you fail at muddying the waters even more.

 

No, you dodged the points and refused to give a real answer climing they were irrelivent. Your the guy dodging and hiding behind false claims that my points don't deserve an answer just because you can't answer.

 

 

Go back and read my post, for every item you offered a real reply to, I responded 100%. Just because I did not waste an hour going line by line that does not mean I dodged anything, if you think I did not cover some relivent point then please feel free to ask again and leave your insulting snide comments at the door because I never intentionally dodge anything.

 

 

I never attacked you. I stated my personal opinion based on your argument here so far. Nice try though.

 

Semantics.

 

 

What you're saying the reason this law was created is what is irrelevant in this discussion. It doesn't matter what the crime was. The reason that this is a problem is that the government is grabbing power and freedom and taking it from the citizens. One little bit at the time. The reason this was created was to extend the sentence of someone who has met the terms of their release. If the fed wants to make those terms higher, they should do it the right way. Not on a whim.

 

The only reason the Government is "grabbing power" is because it had to due to massive problems at the State level. Cause and effect, forever connected no matter how much you say it is unfair to look at the reasons the reasons are still the most important part.

 

For every example of the Government (either State or Federal) gaining more power over the people, there is a direct and stupid set of example of people dropping the ball and giving Government the excuse to do so. I am very sad that these examples exist, but we can only blame ourselves and not Government for doing it. Take sex education in the public schools for example, this would never had happened if parents had done their jobs at home, but they did not do their jobs and in that vaccume, a new government school program was developed.

 

Our own fault.

 

 

If the laws do not work, fix them the right way. Don't go in and change them at will on a whim. Follow the process that is set up to protect us from an oppressive government. To do otherwise is counter productive, and places us further into the bonds of slavery.

 

Fix them right away? When have you ever heard of that ever happeneng? Right now less than 1% of the population control all the laws in the Nation, that is why we get things like the new healthcare law when most Americans did not want it. You said you want these monsters to be punnished more right? Then instead of screaming at me about how easy it is to get the laws changed the "right way", how about you go out there and show me how it is done?

 

You get the laws changed "right away" and I will say your right and I am wrong, but if you can't, then I ask you one very important question, how many children die and ger molested while your waiting forever to get a local law changed?

 

 

You are concerned for result at any cost? When would the cost be too great? When a man is locked up for eating red meat? or meat at all? When does it end, and who decides?

 

Extreme and over the top sensational claim, this would never happen, the premise of the new case law is based on the fact these are already convicted predators, not every day citizens, case law does not work that way.

 

 

I'm not attacking you. I was taking what you were saying, and telling you what it sounded like. I never condoned the rape and or killing of children or any other innocent American Citizen. I believe in my country having integrity. And once you lie or change the rules as you go along, you are losing integrity. If you don't care about America's integrity (or integrity in general), that's your prerogative I suppose, but don't expect anyone to agree with your points, and do expect to lose any claim to the moral high-ground that you might have had.

 

Did not this same system create the supreme court?

 

Your saying to respect the system to one degree, but not another?

 

You are attacking me, your trying to call into question my moral fiber just because I don't support "your" specific views.

 

 

 

You can't escape the basic fact that if these creatures are released, more children are harmed, this is fact, dodge it all you want and hide behind a claim of "purity" all you want, but there is no possible way to escape the fact that you want the molesters released. Sure you have pretty idealogy reasons for that release, but no matter how much pretty wrapping paper you apply, the results are more hurt and killed children.

 

 

I'm not trying to complicate anything. I understand exactly where you are coming from and I think your analogy is absolutely off base. I never said in your analogy that you should not take the water, but there is no consequence. In real life, if we accept this ruling without speaking out and trying to change the real problem, then we are accepting the very heavy and possibly deadly consequence of giving the government more control over our daily lives.

 

I am certainly not condemning every child in America to die or be molested, stop being a drama queen. I am simply preserving the freedoms that every productive American citizen deserves.

 

Your falsely claiming that allowing this one thing will lead to people being arrested for eating red meat but you try to call me a drama queen?

 

Yes "every child" is placed in danger of rape and death if we release these monsters one second sooner than we have to. You want them released, so yes, your possition places all children at greater risk, that is not drama, that is the truth.

 

 

Everything your claiming about being "possibly deadly" is conjecture and assumption, there is no proof that there are any greater harms to "take the water" only your "fears" and I will not condemn children to greater harm based on unfounded fear connected to a strict political agenda or ideaology.

 

 

 

My analogy was EXACTLY the point. Giving the Federal Government unlimited power to change or control the daily lives of the citizens is like taking the water, you are hoping for a temporary fix but condemning yourself to pain.

This is not the rodney king thread. Go there to discuss him.

The states are doing the job that they have been given. Again, if the fed wants the punishments to be stricter, they should enact stricter rules. period.

Rodney King was an example of how the States drop the ball and the Federal Government is forced by the mistakes of the State to step in and fix a problem. The civil rights laws is another great example.

 

Your "assuming" ther help from the Government is similar to being cast into Hell, and that again is more drama queen theatrics you tried to claim I was doing. You went way over ther top to impossible and fake results connected to this one event. If just the simple act of the Feds stepping in would cause the destruction of all things America then why didn't everything collapse when they stepped in to deal with the Rodney King issue?

[timesjoke]

When I was a little kid, I remember finding out that monsters were real. No, they were not shodowy ghosts or deformed or mutated creatures as most children imagine monsters to be, the real monsters look just like everyone else, they are humans, or at least they look that way on the outside.

 

On Feb. 9, 1978 I was 12 years old and it was on that day I discovered the truth.

 

Kimberly Diane Leach was a pretty girl, she was not a close friend but both of our mothers were in the PTA and in those days people visited folks in person to discuss things instead of talking on the phone for a long time. I remember several times going to their home with my mother and while they drank coffee and chatted, we were outside playing. That is where kids played by the way, not inside stuck to a television but outside where the fresh air was.

 

Feb. 9, 1978 was the day Theodore Robert Cowell introduced me to a real monster. More commonly known as Ted Bundy, this man who was on the run from the law after his second escape from a County Jail facility located in Colorado, decided to come to Florida and ply his skills here, after attacking several college girls in Tallahassee he took off and ended up in my hometown and for whatever reason, stopped off at my school and abducted Kimberly Diane Leach. This monster raped and killed Kimberly then dumped her body in a pig pen.

 

 

The Government spent millions of dollars defending this monster even when there was no doubt of his guilt just to preserve the "appearance" of fairness. Did this animal show Kimberly fairness?

 

 

I'm sorry but I want animals like this kept in jail for as long as possible, even one extra day locked up is a win for all children (and society) everywhere. You talk about what "might" happpen all you want, I will concentrate on what "IS" happening and worry about the "might happen" if it does happen.

[ImWithStupid]

When I was a little kid, I remember finding out that monsters were real. No, they were not shodowy ghosts or deformed or mutated creatures as most children imagine monsters to be, the real monsters look just like everyone else, they are humans, or at least they look that way on the outside.

 

On Feb. 9, 1978 I was 12 years old and it was on that day I discovered the truth.

 

Kimberly Diane Leach was a pretty girl, she was not a close friend but both of our mothers were in the PTA and in those days people visited folks in person to discuss things instead of talking on the phone for a long time. I remember several times going to their home with my mother and while they drank coffee and chatted, we were outside playing. That is where kids played by the way, not inside stuck to a television but outside where the fresh air was.

 

Feb. 9, 1978 was the day Theodore Robert Cowell introduced me to a real monster. More commonly known as Ted Bundy, this man who was on the run from the law after his second escape from a County Jail facility located in Colorado, decided to come to Florida and ply his skills here, after attacking several college girls in Tallahassee he took off and ended up in my hometown and for whatever reason, stopped off at my school and abducted Kimberly Diane Leach. This monster raped and killed Kimberly then dumped her body in a pig pen.

 

 

The Government spent millions of dollars defending this monster even when there was no doubt of his guilt just to preserve the "appearance" of fairness. Did this animal show Kimberly fairness?

 

 

I'm sorry but I want animals like this kept in jail for as long as possible, even one extra day locked up is a win for all children (and society) everywhere. You talk about what "might" happpen all you want, I will concentrate on what "IS" happening and worry about the "might happen" if it does happen.

 

 

It really is kind to give credit to the source of your post, as to not be accused of plagiarism or trying to pass off other people's work as your own.

[timesjoke]

When I was a little kid, I remember finding out that monsters were real. No, they were not shodowy ghosts or deformed or mutated creatures as most children imagine monsters to be, the real monsters look just like everyone else, they are humans, or at least they look that way on the outside.

 

On Feb. 9, 1978 I was 12 years old and it was on that day I discovered the truth.

 

Kimberly Diane Leach was a pretty girl, she was not a close friend but both of our mothers were in the PTA and in those days people visited folks in person to discuss things instead of talking on the phone for a long time. I remember several times going to their home with my mother and while they drank coffee and chatted, we were outside playing. That is where kids played by the way, not inside stuck to a television but outside where the fresh air was.

 

Feb. 9, 1978 was the day Theodore Robert Cowell introduced me to a real monster. More commonly known as Ted Bundy, this man who was on the run from the law after his second escape from a County Jail facility located in Colorado, decided to come to Florida and ply his skills here, after attacking several college girls in Tallahassee he took off and ended up in my hometown and for whatever reason, stopped off at my school and abducted Kimberly Diane Leach. This monster raped and killed Kimberly then dumped her body in a pig pen.

 

 

The Government spent millions of dollars defending this monster even when there was no doubt of his guilt just to preserve the "appearance" of fairness. Did this animal show Kimberly fairness?

 

 

I'm sorry but I want animals like this kept in jail for as long as possible, even one extra day locked up is a win for all children (and society) everywhere. You talk about what "might" happpen all you want, I will concentrate on what "IS" happening and worry about the "might happen" if it does happen.

 

 

It really is kind to give credit to the source of your post, as to not be accused of plagiarism or trying to pass off other people's work as your own.

 

Under different circumstances I would laugh but I can't because these are my words Joe.

 

I did know and play with Kimberly, she was taken from my school, and I remember as a kid, armed parents were patrolling the perimeter of the schools for awile because this scared the crap out of everyone. A couple years later I remember another girl claiming she was abducted and raped and that just had the parents all worked up again until the girl confessed she lied.

 

 

What makes you think I stole this from someone else Joe? Try googling it and see what you find, when you don't get any match from anyone else writing this I would appreciate an apology.