|
Post by ineedajob on Dec 31, 2019 16:44:07 GMT -5
It’s still troubling to me because I think 9 years isn’t nearly enough.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 31, 2019 19:02:05 GMT -5
sickening.
on a total side note, I'm confused as to exactly what "a box of 'triangle-type devices' to prevent pregnancy." would be.
|
|
|
Post by photos1 on Jan 5, 2020 11:12:33 GMT -5
I am absolutely chill. No need for any meds here. The progression of the discussion was quite simple. We were discussing the suspended coaches list. Somebody pointed out that all those suspended weren't suspended for sexual related issues. Then someone suggested requirements to register as a sex offender. You then brought up how different states have their own rules about sexual offender registration. Which brought me to my comment about the nut-job politicians out here and their nut-job supporters who think that it shouldn't be mandatory for a convicted child rapist to be on the registration list. I typed slowly so you could keep up It's not your typing speed but your political agenda that is the issue. I really find it creepy to even be forced to comment here. Any one who is a convicted child rapist should not only be be on the registration list, they should be on ‘permanently’ prohibited from ever being connected to any sanctioned team, athlete or event for the rest of the convicted child rapist’s life. No practices, no matches, no tournaments, no role . . . The is no redemption, the is no second chance, there is only ‘go away and stay away. . . And never come back.’ The is no ‘political agenda’ unless it is now part of a ‘political agenda’ to protect young athletes. How is this even a topic for discussion? Let’s discuss the sport, not give paths of redemption to the few deviants who have infected the sport. I also typed s-l-o-w-l-y. #Omaha2020
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 5, 2020 11:16:50 GMT -5
It's not your typing speed but your political agenda that is the issue. Any one who is a convicted child rapist should not only be be on the registration listWho is even disputing that here may I ask? It's not typing speed that is the issue, it is your reading comprehension. Who here said a convicted rapist should not be on the registration list? That poster was insinuating Democrats were soft on pedophiles, that IS A POLITICAL AGENDA. Let me guess, you are also a GOPer who also want to cast the Democrats as pedophile supporters. I guess you never heard of Alabama's failed senate candidate and hardcore Trump supporter Ray Moore and his alleged pedophile conduct? Pot calling the kettle black. I am seldom so blunt, but you are disgusting, using a serious topic like pedophiles to subtly send political messages, you are a hypocrite and I hope you burn in hell. Pedophile is too serious a topic to be used for political mud-slinging posts.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 5, 2020 21:48:45 GMT -5
That poster was insinuating Democrats were soft on pedophiles, that IS A POLITICAL AGENDA. Let me guess, you are also a GOPer. . . You are also wrong in assuming that I am a GoP'er. I'm a registered Libertarian. And who do libertarians generally vote for come election time? GOP candidates. Like I said, there are two sides to every story. What is the reason for their posititons, that I haven't heard. It just seems too convenient for you to point out they "just happened to be Democrats". You highlighted them as Democrats, that is political agenda right here.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 6, 2020 0:37:04 GMT -5
And who do libertarians generally vote for come election time? GOP candidates. Like I said, there are two sides to every story. What is the reason for their posititons, that I haven't heard. It just seems too convenient for you to point out they "just happened to be Democrats". You highlighted them as Democrats, that is political agenda right here. You claim others have a reading-comprehension problem, yet here we are again. Go back to the original post, I didn't identify them (plural) as Democrats. I identified one of the bills' author as a Democrat. I call them out not because they have (D) after their name, but because they support these bills. I would do the same regardless of the initial after their name. I have offered to do as much. Find me that Republican authored and/or supported bill that is soft on pedophilia and I'll call them out too. Defending the folks and the bills with the energy you have without discovering/disclosing "the other side of the story" reeks of political agenda. There you go again manufacturing arguments I never made, that is reading comprehension problems right there. Where have I "defended" them? I simply asked what their rationale was to have a time limit on the registration list, something you choose to ignore. You would do the same regardless of their political affiliation? I somehow doubt that, given the long list of dubious and downright criminal characters in the GOP (some of whom were indeed pedophiles).
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 6, 2020 1:49:30 GMT -5
There you go again manufacturing arguments I never made, that is reading comprehension problems right there. Where have I "defended" them? I simply asked what their rationale was to have a time limit on the registration list, something you choose to ignore. You would do the same regardless of their political affiliation? I somehow doubt that, given the long list of dubious and downright criminal characters in the GOP (some of whom were indeed pedophiles). You are defending them, in essence, by assuming they must have a good reason/sound rationale for supporting the bills. I don't need to discover their rationale. The bills would exclude some pedophiles from registering as sex-offenders and they supported the bills. As to doubting that I would do what I said I would do. Easy to prove yourself right. Find me that Republican who has supported a bill that was soft on pedophilia. If I don't list their name with a (R) after it then you were right. Should be simple. No, I am not defending anyone in "essence". Where did I say they have a good reason? I don't even know WHAT the reason is. I need to know what that reason is before I decide if they have a valid case to make. I mean I can also say you are a GOPer by default by the fact you are a libertarian. Why are you silent then on Roy Moore and the GOP's hypocrisy? What I can't stand is masquerading some serious issue (pedophile) as an underhanded means for political mudslinging. You should stop it, now. Its despicable. I don't think any victims of pedophiles appreciate being used as tools for political point scoring like you. Just stop it.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 6, 2020 2:02:52 GMT -5
Or you know "being soft on pedophiles" isn't what those bills are... at all but are good laws that allow reason into the system. From Equality California:
SB 384: SB 384 would replace California’s existing universal lifetime registration requirement for sex offenses with a tiered system based on the seriousness of the crime, the risk of reoffending and criminal history. There are over 100,000 registrants in California, far more than any other state, and California is one of only four states with a universal lifetime registry. Equality California is cosponsoring this bill to address the unfair circumstance of LGBT people who were targeted and often entrapped on charges that required registration when their actual actions hurt no one, including for simply engaging in same-sex contact when that action was criminalized in the past. These members of the LGBT community were required to register as sex offenders for life even though their convictions are now decades old and the law and its enforcement have changed, and the basis for many of these arrests was due to anti-LGBT discrimination and police entrapment. This bill would remove these people from the registry along with others in similar circumstances and put a new, efficient, risk-based system in place. This bill is cosponsored by Equality California, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) and the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA).
SB 145: SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Today, Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bill 145, which ends blatant discrimination against LGBTQ youth regarding California’s sex offender registry, passed the Senate on a 24-2 vote. It now heads to the Assembly for committee hearings in the coming weeks. SB 145 is co-sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and Equality California, and is supported by both law enforcement and civil rights advocates including the California Public Defenders Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Lambda Legal.
Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 14 to 17 and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not mandate that the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge has discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for all other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.
This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best, as it treats oral and anal sex as somehow worse than penile-vaginal sex — disproportionately targets LGBTQ young people by mandating sex offender registration for forms of intercourse in which they engage. For example, if an 18-year-old straight man has penile-vaginal intercourse with his 17-year-old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, then the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 6, 2020 2:06:31 GMT -5
Or you know "being soft on pedophiles" isn't what those bills are... at all but are good laws that allow reason into the system. From Equality California: the unfair circumstance of LGBT people who were targeted and often entrapped on charges that required registration when their actual actions hurt no one, including for simply engaging in same-sex contact when that action was criminalized in the past. These members of the LGBT community were required to register as sex offenders for life even though their convictions are now decades old and the law and its enforcement have changed, and the basis for many of these arrests was due to anti-LGBT discrimination and police entrapment. Exactly. Thank you very much for the explanation. Its so easy to jump the gun and accuse those people of being "soft on pedophiles" when we don't know what the context is and the history of unjust enforcement of the law against innocents. Folks with political agendas like photos1 and daryldearman would have you believe that these Democrats are pedophile-protectors. That appears far from the case and exactly why I wanted to hear BOTH sides of the story.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 6, 2020 2:26:54 GMT -5
Or you know "being soft on pedophiles" isn't what those bills are... at all but are good laws that allow reason into the system. From Equality California: the unfair circumstance of LGBT people who were targeted and often entrapped on charges that required registration when their actual actions hurt no one, including for simply engaging in same-sex contact when that action was criminalized in the past. These members of the LGBT community were required to register as sex offenders for life even though their convictions are now decades old and the law and its enforcement have changed, and the basis for many of these arrests was due to anti-LGBT discrimination and police entrapment. Exactly. Thank you very much the explanation. Its so easy to jump the gun and accuse those people of being "soft on pedophiles" when we don't know what context is and the history of unjust enforcement of the law against innocents. Folks with political agendas like photos1 and daryldearman would have you believe that these Democrats are pedophile-protectors. That appears far from the case and exactly why I wanted to hear BOTH sides of the story. I just re-read his original posts on page 2. I'm pretty sure he knows this wasn't about "child rapists" and "pedophiles"; he's either just hateful or was really eager for an opportunity to misrepresent facts so he can "own those California libs"
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 6, 2020 2:33:55 GMT -5
Exactly. Thank you very much the explanation. Its so easy to jump the gun and accuse those people of being "soft on pedophiles" when we don't know what context is and the history of unjust enforcement of the law against innocents. Folks with political agendas like photos1 and daryldearman would have you believe that these Democrats are pedophile-protectors. That appears far from the case and exactly why I wanted to hear BOTH sides of the story. I just re-read his original posts on page 2. I'm pretty sure he knows this wasn't about "child rapists" and "pedophiles"; he's either just hateful or was really eager for an opportunity to misrepresent facts so he can "own those California libs" Precisely. And he claims he has no political agenda, what a joke.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Jan 6, 2020 7:37:47 GMT -5
You are also wrong in assuming that I am a GoP'er. I'm a registered Libertarian. And who do libertarians generally vote for come election time? GOP candidates. Like I said, there are two sides to every story. What is the reason for their posititons, that I haven't heard. It just seems too convenient for you to point out they "just happened to be Democrats". You highlighted them as Democrats, that is political agenda right here. Libertarians are anti-authoritarians. Not GOPers. The fact most modern day Dems, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists are Authoritarians, isn't the fault of Libertarians, but is a reason why Libertarians don't usually vote for a Dem. GOP candidates who also wish to be Authoritarian, don't get the support of Libertarians, just like those Dems. Unfortunately, there isn't very many Libertarian candidates w/the qualities needed to win a nomination, so we are forced to pick between the dual party system candidates based on which is least likely to support Authoritarian principles. BTW, I would not support the current law, let alone the proposed changes. I can't imagine a case where the current law is justifiable, let alone expanding it. 10yr delta? for children? really? SICK!
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 6, 2020 7:52:06 GMT -5
And who do libertarians generally vote for come election time? GOP candidates. Like I said, there are two sides to every story. What is the reason for their posititons, that I haven't heard. It just seems too convenient for you to point out they "just happened to be Democrats". You highlighted them as Democrats, that is political agenda right here. Libertarians are anti-authoritarians. Not GOPers. The fact most modern day Dems, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists are Authoritarians, isn't the fault of Libertarians, but is a reason why Libertarians don't usually vote for a Dem. GOP candidates who also wish to be Authoritarian, don't get the support of Libertarians, just like those Dems. Unfortunately, there isn't very many Libertarian candidates w/the qualities needed to win a nomination, so we are forced to pick between the dual party system candidates based on which is least likely to support Authoritarian principles.BTW, I would not support the current law, let alone the proposed changes. I can't imagine a case where the current law is justifiable, let alone expanding it. 10yr delta? for children? really? SICK! You should tell that to Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Jan 6, 2020 8:08:00 GMT -5
Libertarians are anti-authoritarians. Not GOPers. The fact most modern day Dems, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists are Authoritarians, isn't the fault of Libertarians, but is a reason why Libertarians don't usually vote for a Dem. GOP candidates who also wish to be Authoritarian, don't get the support of Libertarians, just like those Dems. Unfortunately, there isn't very many Libertarian candidates w/the qualities needed to win a nomination, so we are forced to pick between the dual party system candidates based on which is least likely to support Authoritarian principles.BTW, I would not support the current law, let alone the proposed changes. I can't imagine a case where the current law is justifiable, let alone expanding it. 10yr delta? for children? really? SICK! You should tell that to Ron Paul. Tell what, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 6, 2020 8:23:30 GMT -5
Libertarians are anti-authoritarians. Not GOPers. The fact most modern day Dems, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists are Authoritarians, isn't the fault of Libertarians, but is a reason why Libertarians don't usually vote for a Dem. GOP candidates who also wish to be Authoritarian, don't get the support of Libertarians, just like those Dems. Unfortunately, there isn't very many Libertarian candidates w/the qualities needed to win a nomination, so we are forced to pick between the dual party system candidates based on which is least likely to support Authoritarian principles. Libertarianism is made up of almost exclusively white males of mid-to-high economic backgrounds. These are the only people privileged enough in our society to really believe that they would be better off with no government.
|
|