Wednesday Open Thread
Good morning! In the news......
Michael Savage gets pissed at Britain, calls for a boycott . I thought the R's said only the D's do that kind of thing ;-)
Got granny's original '69 Mustang? Convert it to scrap iron and get $4500 . The law of unintended consequences does work. Classic car fans are scrambling to save the best before they're gone for good.
The CDC says it's OK to go back to school . Parents rejoice. Was the CDC being responsible with their original 14 day recommendation? Here's something
from the same newspaper about the 1918 flu. Hmmmmm.
A Democrat/Progressive weighs in on the spending issue . Maybe having someone from their side explain it might get ours to understand what we've been ranting about. I liked this quote, 'tis succinct:
In the last 12 months (May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009) the US government has borrowed $1.7 trillion in net new borrowings from the public. This is equal to 1/3 of the entire debt that was held by the public as at May 1, 2008. That's right, in 12 months the government has borrowed 25% of the total amount it has ever borrowed from the public in 230+ years!
I'm worn out from my Cinco de Mayo party yesterday. What's on your mind?
- Purpleface's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Of Cars and Men
The cash for clunkers program struck me as way out of touch. It's as if the writers feel like anyone who drives an old car does so because they want to. Not because they have to.
And $4500 isn't enough to buy a new car for the people they think they're targeting. At best, they'll buy another old car.
I still stand by my original suggestion of last fall: have a lottery for new-car vouchers for people in certain tax brackets. This would stimulate new car sales and remove less-efficient cars off the road, while relieving those in the most need from the burden of car payments and repair bills. But our Congressmen evidently have forgotten what it's like to struggle to make a car payment.
School Closings
There's been a lot of talk about the government overreacting about Swine Flu. And Biden, of course, didn't help matters, although he gets points from me for being honest; it's really too bad when we expect our politicians to lie to us.
I tend to cut the CDC some slack. Maybe it's from living in hurricane country so long and watching the local government and the media try to balance probabilities and public safety. On the one hand, if you issue recommendations to evacuate or board up your property, and the hurricane hits you squarely, then you've saved lives and minimized damage. But if the storm takes a last-minute jog and bypasses you, then businesses and employers are upset (their costs are not negligable; three or four days of lost business can severely damage a small business) and the public becomes a bit jaded. It's a lose-lose scenario sometimes.
Hmm, It seems you are looking a little too closely
at what is going on.
You're going on the list
. (With the rest of us, lol)
How about B of A, they never wanted federal money
, they forced them to take it, B of A wants to pay it back already, the government won't even let them, now the government says the conducted a "stress test" nd B of A needs 34B more in capital 
, B of sys they are good.
Sounds like the government wants some preferred stock in B of A, huh?
Oh, and how about that incident where AF1 buzzed NYC.
Well they now say they will not release those pictures (If they even have them?
) Taxpayers paid 328K for them, I mean we can release "torture" memos, but not these pictures?
Whats that smell...? ;-)
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
The worry was
that is was a brand new virus.
They didn't know how fast it would spread.
I don't think there is any action the government takes that won't be criticized.
I'm only half stupid
Certianly not this one!
I mean this hag
couldn't think her way out of a paper bag!
Of course Harry Reid
probably thinks it's a great idea? What the hell are the liberals ingesting that's got them saying, thinking, and doing things like this?
Or how about the grand ignorance of a Sonia Sotomayer
!
I'd say she should be taken to task on that statement, she's making a public joke out of the fact that she is subverting the system, and the Constitution, she should be suspended, or at least reprimanded for that comment!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
From discussing flu to hags!
quite the disjointed smorgasbord to chose from.
I'm only half stupid
"The Swine Flu? Pah, just
"The Swine Flu? Pah, just Media Hype!"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ya well, we've had 6 such breakout flu's
since 1918, none of which have amounted to much.
Listen, I kept my kid home from school on Friday so we could have the weekend to assess the circumstances, and I would have stopped flights from Mexico, closed the border and the rest of it, but the real likelihood is this is nothing to worry about.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Risk Managament:
I've pulled the trigger 6 times on this loaded 8 shot revolver, no need to worry about pulling the trigger again
If you ran a company, and there's a 5% chance Event A would cost the company the equivalent of 75% of your gross sales and then there's a 25% chance of Event B happening which will costing you .25% of gross sales, would you be worried about Event A or Event B more?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oklahoma - The canary in the coalmine for federal government
Oklahoma legislature to claim soveriegnty...
... "federal government better get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.
Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.
Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.
"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money..”
Good for Oklahoma!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Doesn't this show that Obama incompetent?
Does anyone know how much money Obama gave to Chrysler? If he now let's Chrysler go bankrupt after sending a bunch of money their way, isn't that sort of an prime example of how Obama is clueless and incompetent? Shouldn't the people who ultimately received those funds have to return them? What a mess he has created.
<Shakes Head in Disbelief>
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Extrapolating that line of thinking
If a patient dies after being having a surgery performed, does that automatically mean that it was a waste of supplies and time?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
These are the groups that forced bankruptcy
(Your little screed here blaming Obama is the same twist you used to lie and blame Obama for being responsible for Bush's budget from last year. These types of lies do fool some people, but not as many as you think.)
They are known as speculators, hedge fund managers or a more common term, hedge funds.
They bought the disstressed assets for pennies and refused to accept 30 cents on the dollar during the restructuring negotiations, thus leaving Chrysler no choice but to go into bankruptcy.
After going into bankruptcy court they were forced to reveal their names. Buying the debt for pennies and refusing to accept thirty cents?
These vulture funds, other wise known as bond holders opposed bankruptcy, not Obama.
Even JP Morgan agreed to take a loss here for the sake of preserving jobs in manufacturing here in America.
If you could get your facts in order it would be helpful.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/meet-the-chrysler-holdouts/?hp
The bond holders (hedge fund operators) are:
I'm only half stupid
Good for them!
It only should have happened without the government wasting our money on it first!
What part of that you fail to understand is beyond me.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Is this supposed to change things?
Because its doesn't, you know. It's not like Obama didn't know that this was the case going in.
The last I heard the bond holders were supposed to be first in line, legally speaking, to be made whole in terms of dividing up the Chrysler assets. Despite this they are somehow out in the cold relative to the unions under the Obama plan? Does anyone really thinks that's just a coincidence? The groups who spent millions on political ads for Obama somehow got moved to the front of the line? Hmmm.
At the best this just shows how incompetent Obama is, and how unqualified he is to be sticking his fingers into this process. Apparently "community organizing" is no substitute for actual executive experience.
At the worst this could all be a huge scam on Obama's part. He gives a bunch of money to a distressed business, he then makes sure that he gives the unions the lion's share of the assets, and those assets are then turned around and given right back to him in the form of union donations and free political advertising when the time comes.
Obama is basically embezzling billions of $US and using the Chrysler fiasco as a money laundering operation.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is so typically disengenious
Noting that other secured bond holders were willing to negotiate, just not the ones listed.
So far we have GoPosaurs defending torture, racism, hedge fund speculators, off shore tax havens, while advocating that if only the wealthy can afford health care, it will be great for the middle class, but just some time later on.
I'm only half stupid
Really? How so?
Noting that other secured bond holders were willing to negotiate, just not the ones listed.
(1) Perhaps you missed this part of the quoted text:
So, the banks that had already received bailout funds which, in effect, mitigated any loses that their would be taking in the Chrysler deal decided not to make waves in the Chrysler deal. Hmmm.
(2) The fact that some creditors are willing to take a disproportionate loss (after having already been made whole by the bailout money), doesn't really obligate others to give up their rights, correct?
(3) What possible justification is there for moving the unions to the front of the line when they have no legal right to be there?
And Obama thinks this is a good deal for them? That too shows his incompetence and illustrates that he is more of an impediment in this process than he is a benefit.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The private sector does the same thing
When companies ask for a loan.
Everyone came to the table, everyone, and reviewed the situation. All parties agreed to take a trim for the sake of the greater good except the speculators.
These funds could easily have chosen to make a tidy profit without forcing a bankruptcy.
Yes I know, GR, the right wing talking point is that Obama is bullying these poor poor deprived billion dollar hedge fund operators.
Let's all pity the poor billionaires speculators. sniffle
I'm only half stupid
Hey guy's, watch this: ML, who is "everyone else"?
Please tell us.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Perhaps you missed they did negotiate
but were hammered down on their %, then in a last second increase from the fed, in an attempt to save face, was simply too late to even digest let alone work on.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
buying for pennies
and selling for 30 cents is not a bad deal.
Unless they already sold the distressed assets as futures options @ 60 cents on the dollar.
The poor poor picked on billionaire hedge funders. I will just have to cry myself to sleep.
I'm only half stupid
You keep making this claim.
Do you really know how much they paid or are you just making this up? *
-------------------------------------------
* Not that it actually matters. They are entitled to what the law says they are entitled to and there is no reason they should be obligated to accept less ... especially when the unions are getting MORE than they otherwise would. Like I said, a scam on Obama's part to line his pockets later on down the road. He's just laundering his embezzled funds (in the worst case, of course).
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU TALK SHIT!
Please. Finally. For a change, do the next right indicated thing!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Is this helping or hurting
bring the Republican party into the 21st Century?
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/limbaugh-blasts-colin...
(audio available)
Or maybe the bigger question, "Is Rush helping or hurting his ratings?"
I'm only half stupid
Cause...racism was not a issue in getting Obama elected, right?
Not exactly.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Meh
90% of black voters voted for Gore in 2000. It ain't racism, my friend.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That was racism too!
After all, wasn't Slick Willie the first black President?
Hard for you to admit, you're the party of overt modern day racism!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Actually
Gore got a higher % of the black vote than Clinton ever did.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
But, assuming your stats are correct ...
not nearly as high as Obama did. Remember, that last 6% is the hardest to get. I'd say race has a clear part to play in getting it too.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nope
Obama was a better candidate. He got almost 5% higher than Gore in the general vote, so an extra 6% in the black vote is not particularly notable.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
He wasn't a president.
But the implication remains the same.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Helping on both counts.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He's contradicting himself
Did he endores Obama "purely and solely based on race" or is he just "claiming to be a Republican?" If he is in fact really a Democrat, than that is certainly a reason to endorse Obama, other than race, is it not?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Not really.
96% of the black population supported him. Statistically speaking that really does suggest that his support really was about race.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
90% of black voters voted for Gore in 2000. It ain't about race, my friend.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Irrelevant.
Especially considering that Powell is (supposedly) a Republican.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ah
I misunderstood your pronoun referent.
I thought you were saying Obama's support was about race. I assume now that you were saying that Powell's support of Obama was about race. That I can't argue one way or the other, because it would involve a certain amount of mind-reading.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Now I'm confused.
Isn't that what we have been talking about? Isn't that what Rush was talking about?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry
Centinel went off on the tangent of racism getting Obama elected, and I was in that frame of mind when I read your comment.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Mind reading? When 96% of anything does something...
...there is no need for mind readers.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
That seems to be a common conservative misconception
That when a large percentage of a group of people do something, they all do it for the exact same reason.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh, I know. Those swily conswervatives...
That seems to be a common liberal misconception.
That when 96% of blacks vote for a party that institutionalized them, and bought them off with entitlments up the yeng yang, that it is not racism.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Obama only got 19% of the white vote in Alabama. Is that racism?
You bet your ass it is.
No, that's Alabama.
Is that ok with you?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
And
comparing apples to apples as much as is possible, which is where we can actually begin to make some conclusions, Kerry got 41% of the white vote in Alabama. Hmm...
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh the irony.
Here you are making broad brush statements about the motivation of an entire race of people, and how they are apparently too ignorant to know that they are being played. And they are the ones being racist!
I honestly don't think you are racist, but yeesh, man, take a look at what you are saying!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oohh, you've sucumbed to the insanity of the deal!
You must admit, it is a rather insidious arrangement.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
IN other words
conservatives don't believe in racism.
They don't see color, and believe that equality should be a measure of merit not minority.
Unless black people support Obama. Then suddenly it's all about racism.
It begs the question.
It's an easy answer for Rush, because it keeps him in denial, not about questions of race, but why the conservatives he loves so much were such a failure at governing. In other words he doesn't have to look inward or do any soul searching, because it's always the other guys fault and he is therefore able to avoid any personal responsibility for his parties failures.
I'm only half stupid
Well, to be fair....
.... Pretty much 100% of African Americans voted for a white male in 2004 -- the Democrat or Republican.
If race was their only concern, they might have voted for the Socialist Equality Party, Socialists Workers Party, or the Workers World Party -- each of whom had an African American candidate on the ballot. They didn't.... so apparently it's not just about race.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Excellent point
n/t
I'm only half stupid
You are avoiding/missing the real point about racism
The point is not that Obama is black, though that is the only reason a guy like Collin Powell voted for him, the real racism in America is a direct result of this
.
Instead of the admirable traits ML points out, instead of promoting self responsibility, achievement, or ambition, the Democrats have bought and paid for
the black vote.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Are you suggesting that
Colin Powell's achievements as a Republican, are a result of welfare, or equal opportunity laws? That Colin Powells achievements are completely dependent on democrats? Really that is ludicrous.
Isn't the military and equal opportunity employer. (and Powell is a Republican!)
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of nefarious quid pro quo?
IN the race for success, In order to get there (wherever that is) you have to recognize that some people who cross the finish line, had to run a 200 yard dash just to get to the starting line.
I don't see anything wrong shortening that dash to the starting line, by at least 150 yards.
I'm only half stupid
I'm saying yes, undeniably there has been
a very unfortunate, very expensive, failure on the part of democrats to do much of anything but keep black people down, even when Republicans try to help.
Colin Powel is an example of guy who thought for himself, was a Republican and didn't buy into the message liberals preach, and yes joined the service and did well. But he sold out his life long record, turned his back on the very ideology that made his story possible, and sadly voted race, there is no other explination, Obama stands for everything he is against.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Child, open your eyes
You should listen to Colin Powel, precisely because he IS a Republican.
Even Bill O'Reilly gets it.
There is the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican party and the Colin Powel wing.
You don't get to scathingly demean every democrat for being unpatriotic or immoral (or insert slander here) and then when things don't go your way, say we are going to secede from the Union. These colors don't run remember.
This country will be just fine. Our economy has always been a mix of social programs, safety nets and capitalism. That mix brought us the middle class and what is known as the greatest generation. It will never be perfect and will always be a work in progress.
The only way you are going to grow the Republican party is to embrace some of the democratic reforms, such as regulating banking and making health care a priority instead of a profit gouging scheme.
Seriously. Don't be such a hard core fundamentalist. It is dangerous. Make one compromise and you will reap great rewards, for the country and for your party.
I'm only half stupid
ML, I am making generalities sure
...but the underlying truths exist none the less.
Yes, I am on the Right, but please ML, you are one of, if not the most hyper-partisan people I have ever encountered.
Your rationalizations for every conceivable liberal snippet range from quite amusing in a muddle minded sort of way, to an outright embarrassment.
Please keep your ill-considered slapdash to yourself.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
and what does that have to do
with any part of my post.
Nothing that I can see.
The whole freaking point of my post is to suggest that the rationalizations are coming from you, not Colin Powell.
Read the whole of what he said instead of what Rush quoted.
"Powell said he does not want Republicans to turn into Democrats but rather to build a vibrant party."
"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said."
If you want to be a vibrant party then stop blaming democrats for everything under the sun and practice what you preach. Take responsibility, be responsible and move on with lifting the nation UP, instead of constantly tearing it down.
I'm only half stupid
You actually made me laugh with this one ...
I think that you WAY over estimate the degree with which the average American even cares about these issues in the sense that they even understand or know about them at all.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Marginal tax rates...& guessing
Guess who said this:
"Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts, he said. The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."
~Patrick Henry (R) N. Carolina.
Frank Lunz is subtly telling you with his polling, the people want reform. Reform. Reform.
I (who am nobody) am telling you, take one issue and compromise and cooperate with the democrats. Make it health care or banking regulations. Something that will help average Americans.
It will be the beggining of the rebirth of the Republican party, that Jack Kemp embraced. The party that says business can help the little guy, the minorities, because there is no better social program than a good job.
I would prefer frankly that you stay stuck on Rush, because I favor corrupt democrats over corrupt republicans.
I'm only half stupid
There is another
There is another: he felt that the alternative was worse.
Republicans need to own up that the last span of Republican rule failed -- abysmally -- in upholding the ideals the GOP says it stands for. It was RINO. So, does a "real" Republican continue to throw good money after bad, as the saying goes, or does he vote for someone who (at the time) professed to support some measure of fiscal sanity and a desire for competence in government?
Party identification is all fine and dandy...but what happens when the party's actions again and again fail to live up to their rhetoric?
Good points but not IMO the right ones
Sure we spent too much and lost our way, and Obama told a bunch of lies to sway folks, but at the heart of the matter is some fundamental reasoning one retains regardless as a conservative minded individual, and to even consider voting for a liberal, well leads one on a path that you simply can't get here from there.
He just wanted to see the first Black President.
Which is fine, it's racism, but it's fine.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
And the others?
Is that true of all the Republicans that endorsed Obama
, or just the black ones?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
As PF pointed out there are these awful creatures stalking
...the halls of our capitol.
They're called RINO's.
(If you see one it's okay to kill it)
And SL, that's a short list you're referencing, very short
considering.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
OK.
So the white ones are RINOs, and the black ones are racist? Or is it just Powell that's racist?
(Feel free to back out of this conversation at any time by simply admitting that there may have been other reasons besides race that Powell used in determining who to endorse for President.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, any of them, like Powell, who voted because of race
...are, as you stated, racists, by it's very definition.
Now, whether they are racist in all areas of their lives is another matter, they may, as I suspect is the case with CP, just made a race based decision, and that is more or less the extent of it.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Question
And the reason that you know that Powell's decision was race-based is...?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I've already illustrated the thinking
It is just my opinion SL, relax.
So, to paraphrase;
...at the heart of the matter is some very fundamental reasoning one retains, regardless, as a conservative minded individual, which Colin Powell is, and so to even consider voting for a liberal the likes of Barack Obama, and we all knew what he was even then despite his absurd claims to the contrary, well, just leads one down a path that you simply can't get here from there.
So we are left with the conclusion that ultimately, he just wanted to see the first black president.
I don't blame him.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Possibly
But I can offer other plausible scenarios.
I agree with your premise: in the most basic sense, it IS very difficult for a conservative to vote for a liberal. (As is the reverse.) Many of my conservative acquaintences fought that battle with themselves, and 99 out of 100 came down on McCain's side. Not because they liked McCain, or they thought well of what their party had done, or any of that; it was that they just could not put a liberal, any liberal, in power. Period. Not even a well-spoken one.
But your idea that Powell (and by extension perhaps that 1 out of 100) used the idea of "the first black president" as the tipping point....I think that's inadequate. Sure, it played some role, as it will for the first viable female candidate. But was it the only reason? I doubt it. I see other possible lines of thought---
>> The Presidency is not the only power. Should the Republicans regain some form of control over the legislative agenda during Obama's term, then the worst of his liberalism could be curbed.
>> Circumstances themselves may limit the dovish aspects of liberalism. Afghanistan, anyone?
>> The populace might limit his liberalism. A president swayed by polls, as liberals are wont to be, may be dissuaded from enacting stricter gun controls, for example. Or, as I hold my nose, saber-rattling by states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and most-recently Montana
might impact and limit the most excess acts of liberalism
>> Faith in the future: the Republic has not fallen yet, despite the wayward actions of lots of presidents and Congresses. FDR was probably mighty scary to some at the time, but the US survived and thrived, nonetheless.
Any of these, combined with a disgust and, more importantly, distrust in the current crop of Republican representatives, could have swayed Powell and others.
+2
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah
Sure, we've essentially given up on gun control. Just as Republicans essentially have on privatizing social security. But being swayed by polls is not a liberal tendency. All politicians are, most of them to a greater degree than they like to admit.
Do you honestly think Bush wanted a prescription drug benefit out of principle or did he want to increase his share of seniors? Did his steel tariffs come from his protectionism or his desire to nail down the EVs of West Virginia? Sure, he like to say "I don't govern by polls" but the few times he was being honest about it, he was just trying to put a positive spin on his own stubbornness.
It's ironic that "you may not agree with me but you know where I stand" and "As to whether I govern by polls: I don't" are statments that poll well. Also, responding to polls isn't inherently a bad thing, it's only when it lapses into demagoguery and pandering that it should really be criticized. Making something a priority because surveys show the public cares about it is simply being responsive to your constituents. Doing something you don't belive in to gain electoral advantage is pandering. I suspect Obama might be guilty of it on "clean coal" ; I'm absolutely certain the GOP was guilty of it on a range of major issues.
Note: Powell seemed genuinely disgusted by the Right's rumurmongering about Obama being a Muslim, as well as Palin's thin credentials. I think it was the McCain campaign's anti-intellecutalism that pushed him over.
Telepromter President
But you have to admit, the Obama Administration have taken things to a whole new level. He took 25 teleprompter units to Europe, they had the big texting to announce the VP pick, their use of email and internet is well known, does it not make sense to agree they used polling data extensively, and allowed that to develop their TP's and effect policy?
I mean Obama did not go from here to there
in a few months because he was having a change of heart.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
If I was a better artist ...
I would love to draw a political cartoon in which we see a caricature of Obama reading a speech off a teleprompter and off to the side we see Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all furiously typing into keyboards which are connected directly to the teleprompter.
Of course in the caricature Obama is drawn with vertical lines at the sides of his mouth to make him resemble a puppet. :)
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I guess that's true ...
I mean just look at, say, Arlen Specter. He was recently citing polls as the basis for making some career altering changes and he's a Repub... oh wait... never mind. :)
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush is a poor example
In my framing above, he's the leader of the RINO pack.
As far as your other point, that Bush used those "I don't follow polls" statements that also happen to poll well, that's a bit of a semantic argument. I tend to think he was sincere, but showing his, er, well, let's call it mediocrity by his frequent assertions. Someone who actually does that has no need to walk around saying so; it would be self evident.
But I think this comment actually supports my statement
I think many a conservative would disagree with that bolded statement. Because, for example, I want a pony. I bet you'd like one too. We'd all love ponies. Is it a good thing, then to give the people a pony? Conservatives would respond "No" (because it's not the federal government's job to provide ponies). Liberals tend to waffle on this; maybe ponies should be given, if people really want ponies and we can afford them and it would be a good thing for the community, create jobs, etc. Of course I'm simplifying, but I do think it's a philosophical difference between the two; a subtle difference, perhaps, but a difference nonetheless.
Certainly ...
there may have been other reasons, I just don't believe that there actually were any. YMMV.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Did you see Eric Cantor, Mitt, Fred, and those guys
...got a new thing going, council for a new america I think is the name, I guess they'll be doing townhalls and stuff around the country tlking about getting back to basics.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
sorry
but Rush blew them off, saying listening is a violation of conservatives principles.
Eric has already bowed to the great master, and denounced the listening tour on Morning Joe.
I am just pointing out that Rush is not helping your party here.
I'm only half stupid
What the hell are you talking about?
By the way, all this Rush bashing, be it by you or the President himself, is oh so obvious. Too bad it is about the only transparency he's been able to muster in his presidency. We conservatives see right through it.
You hate Rush because he calls you on your sh!t. It makes you crazy because you can't shut him up. So in good old Chicago politics style, you attack it from another perspective, reverse psychology. "Rush is the head of the party", and the veiled care and concern for the GOP and the damage Rush is doing are all part and parcel of the failed plan.
None of it has worked. Rush takes you to the mat everyday, day in, day out.
Well, there's always the Fairness Doctrine.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
All I am saying
is that Rush is holding your party hostage. You probably think it's great that every rep that disagrees with him ends up publicly back peddling within a few days, because conservative principles never change.
Again, all I asked was if you think he is good for your party. If your answer is yes, I have no problem with that. I just think it is foolish.
I'm only half stupid
Hear, hear!
And the real Republicans have been saying so all along, some louder than others.
Excellent point, m'lady.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Further
You don't have to do much as the democratic party trying to promote opporotunty for all, when the gop holds on to not expanding voting rights to include blacks, or refusing to vote to honor Martin Luther King.
No doubt the democrats have used some cynical ploys.
However it is hard not to notice that the 'moral majority' was a direct take from MLK's church based movement for equality.
The GOP did a great job of hijacking the church (copying the MLK model) and staking their position that the only good christian is a republican christian.
You can blame the democrats all you want, but you have to recognize that the GOP had a definitive part in driving blacks out of the republican party. That is exactly why you should listen carefully to what Colin Powel is saying. He is on your side.
I'm only half stupid
Well, to be REALLY fair ...
... this IS an excellent point.
But this part is only valid IF you are willing to assume that Blacks are too STUPID to know when they would be throwing their votes away.* We all know that in the current political climate here in the US that a vote for a third party candidate might as well not have been cast at all. That's just a sad reality of the current dominance of the Republican and Democrat parties today.
Given this reality, however, your observation has some serious implications for SL's point that 90% voting for Gore indicates that race was not a factor. In light of this new observation on your part I would have to say that SL was completely correct in that statement but not for the reason he thought. Race was NOT a factor in the 90% vote by Blacks for Gore simply because they had no viable Black candidate to even vote for. Their viable choices were between 2 white guys as TPH correctly points out. So comparing the percentages of the vote for Gore and Obama is clearly an apples to oranges comparison from the perspective of this particular dimension.
Geeze, man, I should have thought of this before. I'm slipping. :(
-------------------------------------------
* Personally, I don't think that they are STUPID at all, just mislead and misguided by the Democrat party.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why's that?
Why? They are both people. They are even both Democrats, and have some reasonably similar policies.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
If Gore had been running against a Black man ...
you might have a point. But of course he wasn't.
So to make any claims about what the percentage for Gore had among Black saysabout the Black community on the issue of racism is bogus from the get go. They had no serious option to vote for a Black candidate in that election so OBVIOUSLY they made their decision based on other factors.
It does demonstrate that they vote as a block, though, so when a Black candidate came along they all jump on that bandwagon like white on ric... err, well you get the point.
This is also true, so if we were discussing Republicans we wouldn't even be talking about racism. The color of someone's skin is something that Democrats pay attantion to, not Republicans. It's the Democrats that always want to ask about it on forms and such, right?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4-4
n/t
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Additionally...
And that is in fact my point. 90% of blacks voted for a mediocre candidate that got 48.4% of the general popular vote, in an election where it is clear that race was not a factor. So the fact that 96% of blacks (a 6.6% improvement* over 2000) voted for a similar, but stronger candidate that got 52.9% of the general popular vote (a 9.2% improvement* over 2000) is clearly NOT evidence that race was a factor in 2008!
*Percent improvements are based on an increase of 6 from 90, and an increase of 4.5 from 48.4. I have no idea if that is a statistically valid way of representing these increases, but it sure makes my argument look good!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
:)
Fair enough, sort of. It would be interesting to know if a shift from 90 to 96 is statistically significant. I don't know for sure so I stayed away from that particular point.
I countered your point (see above) before I had even read it with the "they vote as a block" argument. In THIS elecetion their issue was "obviously" race. That's clear to ME anyway. :)
Meta: This post is a semi-serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What is this "racism" thing that you speak of?
As a conservative I don't see race, only people. Please explain what you mean. How does this thing called "racism" actually work?
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4ask Rush
He's the one that made the claim that Powel is a racist.
All I originally asked was if you thought it was good or bad for your party to have Rush Limbaugh saying that the only reason that Powel supported Obama is because of race.
Rush is your hero, so I guess you will have to do the explaining on Rush's definition or racism.
(My vote is that Rush's comments damage the Republican party.)
I'm only half stupid
And my vote was registered ...
here
.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So why then
did Rush use the term racism? It is a concept supposedly he opposes.
I say he is it as using an excuse for the Republicans losing, so they don't have to look
in the mirror.
I'm only half stupid
He's making the point that ...
the reason was because Obama is Black. He calls it racism because that is what it is by definition. He is not putting a negative spin on it though, it's just a simple statement of the facts as he sees them. It's a topic of conversation and retrospective (collective US not just Republicans).
Rush doesn't have a hateful bone in his body. Anyone that truly listens to the program knows this very well. Democrats just like to take his paradies out of context to paint him as a hate monger, but there's no real truth behind the charge.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The thing is
Rush, and apparently you, seem to believe this about Powell because he is black. I don't see you making the same argument and being so ridiculously sure of yourself for any other Republican who endorsed Obama. You are making this assessment of Powell based purely on the color of his skin.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You say this as if there is another
...Republican with anything like the status Colin Powell had in the republican party.
The rest of that pathetic list for the most part is made up of relics and nobody's.
Christopher Buckley sure wishes he could get do over! lol.
In the end it is only speculation on our part, but it certainly is justifiable in light of the circumstances, and it reasonably explains what otherwise has to be considered unexplainable behavior otherwise.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
The explanation is obvious
n/t
I'm only half stupid
When I address a normal free thinking liberal person
...and not some tired out, one dimensional, oh so predictable partisan hack like you - just keep your feckless snipes to yourself.
...sorry, as I was saying SL...
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Yes sir!
Herr Conservative!
No more responses to you!
Have a great life and give Rush a hug.
I'm only half stupid
Whatever
A "response" requires thought. Your reactionary claptrap is pretentious and insincere.
Respond all you like, but please, retain the other for your dear friends at D/Kos or wherever else intellectually defecient psycho liberals congregate.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
BS
And you must know it
, or you're just pleading party politics.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
What exactly is BS?
Black voters tend to go overwhelmingly for Democratic Presidential candidates. True or False?
So, given that Obama was a Democrat, it is not surprising at all that he received an overwhelming amount of the black vote. What about this is BS? Just because you don't like it (that blacks tend to vote Democratic) doesn't make it untrue. If you actually have a real argument, put it forth.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Meh
(Mixed in under a faux cough) Racism
.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
In other words
... you don't have a real argument to put forth.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No more than I have...
Do you desire more proof of your racism?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
You've got an extra word in there
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
huh
(mixed in under faux cough)learn stats
I'm reminded of when Rush thought the guy who still is one of the best QB's in the NFL outside of Peyton and Tom Brady, overrated and overhyped because he was black.
Rush, had a premise. Looked at the stats for a small number of games. Rush then thought he had his premise proved in his point.
You cannot look at the black vote for Obama with out punching in the numbers for the black vote for Gore, Clinton....
Compare apples to apples.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
(Spoken with an english accent) "Speak english man"!
?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
"jumping the gun"
One cannot take a small outlier in stats, or look at a single stat without looking at the broader picture and then jump to a conclusion.
You cannot look at stats and make conclusions without knowing the broader picture. For example, you cannot say that oil companies aren't running efficiently because a completely different industry has more net profit.
Same goes with McNabb/Rush.
When Rush saw that McNabb had a bad 2 weeks, Rush quickly jumped to the conclusion that McNabb was overrated and hyped up as the Great Black Hope at QB. Then McNabb went back to being a top 8 NFL QB like everybody else thought he was and still is. Rush jumped to a conclusion, because Rush didn't seriously consider the fact that no NFL player has an All-Pro performance every week.
Rush's comments on McNabb would only make sense to people that don't pay attention and understand football or crack pots.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
More rich text
from the GOposaurs.
I am sorry, but this is such an out and out blatant lie, that I just can't stand it.
Cheap tricks or how to make sh*t up.
Rep. Steve King R Iowa agrees that the hate crimes bill protects pedophiles but not veterans.
They actually say this stuff out loud on television where people can see and hear it and record it.
Ack! They might as well just say the earth is flat and that liberals planted scientifically dated dinosaur bones as a part of a plot to take over the world.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905060016
transcript
How is the GOP going to be able to recruit new fresh candidates to run on this kind of platform.
I'm only half stupid
Which of these statements is NOT true?
(1) The Democrats voted down an Amendment to the Hate Crimes legislation that sought to explicitly exclude pedophiles from being protected.
(2) The current Hate Crimes legislation does NOT protect veterans.
Please tell us, which of those is being made up per your accusation?
UPDATE:
Please note that there are several states that extend the Age of Sexual Consent
to minors. So the claim by Baldwin that the current definition excludes pedophiles is patently false. A pedophile can legally have consensual sex with a 16 year old minor in many states, so they would be protected by the current legislation.
UPDATE II:
And lest anyone think that no one would consider someone as old as 16 as being applicable to charges related to pedophilia, consider the ever growing number of convictions for "sexting" where teens send nude or semi-nude photos to each other on their cell phones. They are being charged with, and convicted of, possessing child pornography
. Child pornography, isn't that what pedophiles are interested in? And in many cases these kids are required to register as sex offenders after their convictions.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4True statements they are
...but alas, those are not Hannity's statements. He said "that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles." That is not true. (Or, as MissL accurately states, "an out and out blatant lie.") Yes, they voted down an amendment that specifically excluded pedophiles - but pedophiles are already excluded from the protections, so the amendment was redundant and unnecessary. If some prankster introduced an amendment to specifically exclude Martians from the protections, should that have been approved?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sorry.
But voting down an amendment that would exclude pedophiles from hate crimes protections when the legal definition of "sexual orientation" would include pedophiles actually IS protecting pedophiles. Hannity's statement is, therefore, a true statement as evidenced by my additional updates above.
No they aren't as I have demonstrated above. If there is a lie in this conversation this would be it (and this came directly from a Democrat, BTW).
I have no idea. What is the Martian's sexual orientation and age? :)
Let us explore the substance of my updates above.
(1) Is a 16 year old boy (or girl) still a child from a legal perspective? If they are NOT children then how is it that people are being convicted of possessing child pornography for having nude photos of people this age?
(2) Can a 16 year old boy (or girl) legally give their consent to have sexual relations?
(3) If a 35 year old man has consensual sex with a 16 year old boy (or girl), is he somehow not a pedophile? I say he still is, legally speaking, since he is having sex with a minor child.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't get it, GR.
And I really don't want to defend this bill... but I think this particular line of attack is nonsensical.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905060036
The age of consent is set by the state. Sex between and adult and someone under the age of consent is statutory rape. A person who is under the age of consent can not have consensual sex -- they are not legally able to consent.
Are you saying that you think the age of consent needs to be raised in states where it is less than 18? I'm with you, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Geeze man, stay on topic please.
The issue is pedophilia, not rape which is a completely different topic.
The assertion by the Republicans is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, so unless we want to protect pedophiles from hate crimes we need to explicitly exclude them from the definition of sexual orientation in this legislation. The Democrats voted against it.
So, what is a pedophile? Someone who has sex with children. Who are children under the law? Anyone under the age of emancipation
which is generally recognized to be 18 in the US. Many states set the age of sexual consent at 16. So in those states some people who are technically children under the law (i.e. those between 16 and 18) are none the less able to give sexual consent.
Baldwin is relying on the current definition of sexual orientation as being "consensual homosexual or heterosexual sex", and she claims, falsely, that this means that pedophiles are already excluded from the definition because of the use of the word "consensual" in the current definition. But as I have shown in some states a sexual relationship between a 16 year old boy or girl and a 35 year old man or woman can be considered consensual even though the 16 year old is still a child.
It follows, therefore, that the current definition of sexual orientation Baldwin relies upon still includes pedophiles in some states. I am just pointing out that she is either lying or stupid, and as a result the Democrats voted to protect pedophiles. This is a simple statement of fact, regardless of whether they intended to do so or not.
Does that clear it up?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No...
.... that doesn't clear up anything.
Pedophilia isn't legally a sexual orientation. It's also not a disability. Legally it never has been, and it never will be. This is all completely made up, GoRight -- and you know it.
What you're objecting to is that states have laws that allow non-adults to have sex with adults. How does this bill change that? This is already protected behavior -- protected by state law. It's happening right now, legally. Seems to me that if you object, you should be focusing your energies on trying to change the state laws that permit it. The bill does nothing -- let me repeat -- nothing to change any of this.
Nothing in this bill protects pedophiles. If this is going to be the basis of the GOP's objection to the substance of this bill then they're going to lose. It's flimy, ridiculous, and frankly the perpetrators of this 'argument' should be ashamed of themselves.
Edit: I'd like to add -- I don't like the bill. It may not even be constitutional. A smart person could construct an effective argument against it. I'd like to see one do so. So far, I haven't seen it.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
What would Barney Frank do?
H/T Powerline
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Hey Centinel....
.... I'm curious. Do you think that a provision that punishes an organization for having employees who have been indicted is good law? Or, more generally, do you think there should be any laws that punish people for being indicted for crimes?
Personally, I don't think anyone should be punished unless they're convicted.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I agree with you...again...damn it. ;-)
That being said, I predict ACORN is about to suffer some devastating legal setbacks. There are ongoing investigations going on all across the country, and you know as do I how shady ACORN is
.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Hey....
.... that's a good thing -- it means we're probably right.
Acorn definitely has some issues -- no argument there from me.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I have no opinion on this bill, per se ...
as I have not nor do I intend to read it. Whether this bill is good or bad is irrelevant to the point I am making.
I am just here to call Baldwin a liar because, well, she's lying. Or in the alternative, a stupid moron as BR would say. Oh, and also to defend the point made by Hannity that the Democrats have, in point of fact, voted to support pedophiles. I'm not claiming that they intended to do so, or that they actively do so on a regular basis, but that in this instance they did.
Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you could endeavor to point out the bits that are confusing you then. Which of these topics is confusing you?
1) What a pedophile is?
2) Who pedophiles are sexually attracted to?
3) How your sexual preferences determine your sexual orientation?
4) What a minor child is?
5) What the age of sexual consent means?
6) What the age of emancipation means?
Because if you understand all of these points I fail to see how you cannot understand the point I am raising.
It's also NOT explicitly not a sexual orientation legally speaking. The point is debatable. The amendment to make it explicit and clear was voted down by the Democrats. This is a simple statement of fact.
Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China.
Made up in what way? Are you asserting that pedophiles are not sexually attracted to children, or are you asserting that who someone is attracted to does not determine their sexual orientation?
No, I am not objecting to anything actually, not even the bill which brought this all about. I am asserting that the Democrats have, in point of fact, voted down an amendment that subsequently has the effect of providing aid to pedophiles in some cases. I am merely making a statement of fact to counter the lies and distortions being reported by Democrats, and specifically Baldwin in this case.
True or false, this bill will extend hate crimes protections to pedophiles (be they homosexual or heterosexual) in some states?
I have no doubt that this is true, but of course as I have stated above this is neither my intent nor my purpose.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GoRight....
... this does not make any sense. Your entire argument hinges on Pedophila being legally defined as a sexual orientation -- yet it has never been defined as a sexual orientation. Find a court case, or judicial opinion, or any legal source other than your imagination that indicates that any court in this country would apply the distinction of 'sexual orientation' to Pedophilia and you've got an argument. In the absense of that, you're making an empty assertion that invalidates your entire argument.
Pedophilia is by definition not consentual. It is sex with a person under the age of consent. An adult who has sex with a person younger than him/herself who is over the age of consent is not engaging in pedophila. An act of pedophilia is always a crime.
I mean, if we're reaching down into the bag of silly arguments just to pull something out, why not say that the bill protects African American pedophiles if they are targetted for a hate crime because they are African Americans? Or it protects disabled pedophiles if they're targeted for being disabled? Or maybe Christian pedophiles if they're attacked for being Christians? Those are at least true. The idea that this bill would give special protection to pedophiles who are attacked for being pedophiles has no basis in fact -- none whatsoever. This whole exercise is a case of the rankest sort of political hackery... and it's hugely embarrassing for the GOP.
You've asserted that pedophilia could be reasonably considered as a legal sexual orientation -- ignoring that acts of pedophilia are always criminal. You need to support that assertion with something other than your imagination.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Let us correct your errors one at a time then.
See there's part of your problem right there. You have a mistaken impression of what pedophilia actually is.
Emphasis is mine.
1) One's preferred sexual object defines one's sexual orientation does it not?
2) Legally speaking a CHILD is considered to be someone under the age of emancipation, and not the age of sexual consent as you seem to be asserting, or do you dispute this?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're deliberately conflating
"sexual orientation" as affinity for any particular group with the traditional interpretation of straight vs. gay or bisexual. Being gay has nothing to do with being a pedophile, and any association of the two through ambiguous definitions is going to get people mad at you. You may not see the connotations intentionally, but when Pat Buchanan dismissed Mark Foley as a "flamer" and when Joe the Plumber proudly tells his gay friends to stay away from his kids, we get the feeling this association is pervasive on the right.
Besides, object and orientation are not the same word. "Object" of refers to a specific target, not a general preference for a group of people (or animals I suppose).
Deliberately conflating is so strong a term ...
I am not conflating anything. I am not asserting that "gay = pedophile" any more than I am asserting "hetero = pedophile". I am asserting that from a legal perspective the term "sexual orientation" is inadequately defined, is inherently ambiguous, and its plain text reading is consistent with the inclusion of pedophilia as a specific type of sexual orientation.
I am making no assertions as to whether that orientation has any overlap or implications related to other more traditional usage of the term sexual orientation.
Being gay has nothing to do with being a pedophile, and any association of the two through ambiguous definitions is going to get people mad at you.
Where have I associated these two? Where have I even singled out homosexual versus heterosexual? I have been reasonably careful to include all combinations of boy/girl and man/woman throughout this thread. Am I mischaracterizing the truth of my actions on this point?
Let me make it perfectly clear for all to read:
Homosexual does NOT mean pedophile.
Heterosexual does NOT mean pedophile.
Pedophile as I am using it throughout the entire thread is simply as the dictionary definition describes it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Does that clarify things sufficiently for you? I further assert that this declaration does not change the intended meaning of anything I have stated throughout this thread, nor how people should interpret it.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Inconsistency
How come you are using the dictionary definition of pedophile, but the legal definition of child? Methinks you should be consistent.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I am not aware of any existing legal definition of pedophile ...
and I actually DID check the US federal code for one when I was verifying Baldwin's claims concerning the existing definition of sexual orientation she claims to be relying upon.
I have confirmed that the code does actually use the definition that she is quoted as using, but I was unable to find a comparable definition for pedophile. As such this is actually part of my basis for claiming that the issue actually IS debatable, legally speaking.
BUT, the federal code that is obviously dealing with pedophilia is written from the perspective of protecting children, so the term pedophile is barely even mentioned (although is does exist in some notes and such). They focus instead on defining the prohibited acts such as the creation and possession of Child Pornography (which is obviously targeting pedophiles).
So lacking a clear definition in the federal code to work from I chose instead to highlight the fact that there are a growing number of convictions related to teen "sexting" in which people are being convicted of possessing and transmitting Child Pornography when the actual content in question is nude or semi-nude photos of underage girls ... including girls aged 16 and over.
I argue that if you can gain a conviction against someone for possessing Child Pornography when the content is question is actually a nude or semi-nude photo of a girl aged 16 or over, then it stands to reason that from a legal perspective a girl aged 16 or over is still considered a child.
So if a 16 year old girl counts as being a child from the perspective of Child Pornography, why would she not also count as being a child from the perspective of pedophilia? Legally speaking, of course.
Given this, do you still believe that I am trying to "pull a fast one" or am being inconsistent on this point?
If you can point me to an applicable legal definition for pedophile I will be happy to adjust my position to take that into account. Just let me know where it is.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Legal definitions
Not sure why pedophilia should have a legal definition. It's not a crime, after all. Does schizophrenia have a legal definition? There is a perfectly clear medical definition of pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with 16-year olds.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm sorry.
I guess I was actually confused by your call that I be consistent. So you are now saying that when you said I should be consistent what you actually meant was inconsistent? I see.
Well, actually I don't. How did medical definitions even get on the table here? Since I am focusing on the legal aspects of things how am I being inconsitent in my argument as it applies to the legal definition of terms? What definitions are you actually wanting me to use and why are those any better than the legal focus I am taking here since, well, we are discussing laws?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4OK then
The only way to be truly consistent would be to use the dictionary definition of both, and the dictionary definition of child
, while somewhat vague, tends to imply much younger than what you want to use.
I suppose if you really want to define pedophilia to include any 18-year-old who finds a 16-year-old
sexually attractive, you are welcome to do so, but I think you are completely undermining the actual seriousness of the term, and rendering it virtually meaningless. And if that is your definition of pedophilia, then I don't really have much of a problem with Democrats being "willing to protect" those 18-year-olds!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hey, I'm not even arguing that you don't have a point ...
but in a court of law your point is apparently meaningless as the sexting convictions demonstrate. And in that context it's not only 18 year olds being convicted, unless I am mistaken there have even been 17 year olds convicted and required to register as sex offenders because they forwarded a picture of an ex-girlfriend in a moment of anger.
But the fact remains, from a legal standpoint (which seems appropriate since we are discussing laws), the Democrats voted down an amendment that would have clearly and unambiguously prevented legitimate pedophiles (not just the 18 year olds) from using this hate crimes legislation for cover.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sex offender ≠pedophile
But these people are NOT being convicted or accused of being pedophiles. I'm not sure where you are getting this equivalency from, but it is just not the case. And since it seems like your entire argument relies on this equivalency, then your entire argument is flawed.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What specific group of sex offenders ...
are Child Pornography laws trying to address?
Why are parent groups so up in arms when registered sex offenders move into their neighborhoods?
Who are those parents worried about protecting? What specific group of sex offenders would be targeting that group?
If these questions and their obvious answers make no sense to you in this context then I don't know what else to say. This must be a case of willful ignorance on your part.
In general, I agree. In the context of this discussion, I don't. We are talking about the sex offenders that are the target of Child Pornography laws. Which class of sex offenders is interested in Child Pornography? Hint: They are called pedophiles.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Specific groups
Child pornography laws are targeted at the specific group of sex offender known as child pornographers. As you have quite successfully pointed out with your examples of 17-year-olds being convicted of child pornography, child pornographer ≠ pedophile.
Parents are upset by sex offenders in the neighborhood because some of them may be child molesters. Some may be exhibitionists, which I'd think parents would also not want to have near their children. Some may be rapists, which might upset just about anyone, parent or not. Some might be incest offenders, which are probably relatively harmless, but parents might be weirded out by having someone like that near their kids as well. Child molesters are the only ones that could accurately be called pedophiles.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And as you well know ...
This is the exact group I am discussing in this thread. Why you continue to try and obfuscate that point I do not know.
exhibitionists - Nothing to do with Child Pornography.
rapists - Nothing to do (directly in and of itself) with Child Pornography.
incest offenders - Probably includes a large percentage of the pedophiles out there, actually, contradicting your assertion that they are "relatively harmless".
child molesters / pedophiles - The primary producers and consumers of Child Pornography.
The only real group associated with Child Pornography is pedophiles. If it were not for pedophiles there would not be a market (for the most part) for Child Pornography. To try and claim the child pornography is completely unrelated to pedophilia, or that the impetus for Child Pornography laws is not focused on stopping the sexual abuse of children by pedophiles is disingenuous at best.
Thus making my point. Child pornographers are, in essence, pedophiles by and large. The degree of overlap between these groups must be well over 90% or 95% (strictly a WAG on my part). Sure, there may be some misguided profit seekers out there but to a very large degree ... and especially in the eyes of the law ... Child Pornographer = Pedophile.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And yet
Accepting your numbers for the sake of argument, it is the very group that is not part of that 90-95% overlap that you are using to make your point. Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, pedophilia is not an attraction to 16-year-olds.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You obviously misunderstand or willfully misrepresent
my point.
YOU were the one drawing a distinction between Child Pornographers and Pedophiles. I took that to mean that you were saying not all Child Pornographers are Pedophiles. A point that I have acknowledged. This raises the question of who are these people that engage in the production and probably more pertinent the distribution of Child Pornography who are NOT Pedophiles? I assert that the people that lie in that 5% or 10% of Child Pornographers who legitimately are NOT Pedophiles are merely ordinary (yet clearly unscrupulous) people seeking to make a profit by exploiting the Pedophiles.
Note that this says nothing about the legal definition of who a child is under the law, nor about the general legal precedent that minors aged 16 to 18 are still considered to be children under the law as it applies to Child Pornography laws (the violators of which are 90% to 95% Pedophiles by my WAG).
Given the above explanation of my meaning of my prior statements, I don't believe that your claim is valid. I don't believe that the people which you are refering necessarily even have sex with 16 year olds, much less children ... at least not by the group to which I was referring.
I'm tired of this silly argument, actually. I established my main points early on, but here they are in a reworded and hopefully more concise form:
1) Pedophiles are generally recognized as being people who are attracted to children.
2) A child under the law is generally considered to be anyone under the age of majority.
2a) Lacking an explicit legal definition for pedophile or pedophilia, I then extrapolated from the common dictionary definition to assert that a pedophile is someone attracted to anyone under the age of majority (i.e. the generally accepted legal definition of a minor/child).
2b) I illustrate that it is the age of majority (not the age of consent) that is significant in these cases for determining who and who is not a child by providing examples of actual court convictions on Child Pornography cases where the victims were over the age of consent but under the age of majority.
3) Baldwin asserts that the definition of "sexual orientation" within the existing statute already excludes pedophiles (presumably under the law) specifically BECAUSE the definition relies on those involved having given consent.
4) I then demonstrate that the age of consent is different from the age of majority in many states and that because of this difference Baldwin's assertion regading the exclusion of pedophiles is erroneous, since there exist potential pedophiles (consistent with 2, 2a, and 2b above) whose victims are legally able to give consent and yet are still considered to be children under the law.
5) Because of 4 I assert that Hannity was correct and Baldwin was not.
I can't make it any clearer than that. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to go over these points any further. You are free to disagree with this analysis if you wish, at which point we will merely have to agree to disagree on this point.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, we obviously disagree
I can agree with you on that!
The main issue I have is with your "extrapolation" (2a), which, as you have half-acknowledged yourself
, leads to a definition of pedophile that is patently absurd, including in that category college freshmen who have the hots for high school seniors.
So fine, if you honestly believe that a college freshman dating a high school senior is a pedophile, then I can't argue with you. You are completely wrong, but you are certainly entitled to a bone-headed opinion. And if Hannity honestly believes that such a person is a pedophile, then I guess he wasn't lying, he's just a moron.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, let me clear up this misconception too ...
I'm not even saying that this is WHAT I BELIEVE. I am saying that I believe that this is WHAT THE LAW SAYS TODAY based on the legisilative text and associated court rulings, and I have backed up that position with text and examples from each.
Absurd or not, I have already demonstrated that the situation you describe is already occuring. College freshmen (or people of that age) ARE being PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED of violations of Child Pornography laws which by definition were designed and intended to target the activities engaged in primarily by PEDOPHILES. So whether they are, or are not, actually pedophiles in a medical sense they are being convicted as such and, therefore, in the eyes of the Law they ARE pedophiles contrary to Baldwin's assurances to the contrary.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No
Your very carefully worded statement here indicates to me that you KNOW that you are using shaky logic. You've got more squirms in there than a box of worms. You need to equate the prosecuted 17-year-olds to pedophiles, and you can only do it through several degrees of separation.
We get back, mainly, to the fact that you admit that these activities are engaged in primarily by pedophiles, not exclusively. But to connect all your squirms you need to assume that everyone engaging in these activities are pedophiles. It is a self-defeating argument. If you can't see that, then I can't really help you.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Everyone is getting hung up on
the word pedophile, which is a misdirection of the intent, of the hate crimes law.
This is why Hannity's use of the word is so out and out inflammatory and devious. He is conflating homosexuality (legal) with the crime of pedophilia.
An adult who acts out pedophile urges is a criminal.
Adults who act out homosexual urges are not commiting a crime.
See the difference.
The hate crimes law does not protect the criiminals.
Since Pat Robertson is the genisis of this ridiculousness, and he equates homosexuality with deviation and immorality, he automatically assumes that all sexual oriented protection is deviation.
Though one could argue that people like Pat Robertson would like to see homosexuality criminalized between consenting adults, it is not a illegal or a crime.
Essentially Hannity's great big fat strawman here is using the word pedophile.
I'm only half stupid
It's not Hannity's word, actually.
It is the word used in the Amendment that the Democrats voted down ... a point which is not even in dispute, BTW.
Please show me where he or anyone involved in the discussion to explicitly exclude Pedophiles from the protections offered in the legislation has stated that homosexual = pedophile. If there are lies being told here, this is clearly one of them.
Except for the pedophiles (who are NOT the same group as either homosexuals OR heterosexuals).
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4...Agian ML misses the entire point and loses herself
in a flurry of extraneous and obfuscatory snippets.
The fact is in a Judiciary Committee hearing Steve King introduced amendment legislation to insure this bill would not include pedophiles, democrats unbelievably voted against excluding pedophiles from protection in the new crime bill
.
In the same hearing Debbie Wasserman Schultz verbally attacked Republicans for suggesting our soldiers returning from war, dead or alive, should be protected in a similar fashion, she was aghast at the suggestion they are victims of "real" crime like her constituents, maybe she, and ML should watch this
.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Yeah, we've heard the propoganda
That's what this entire thread has been about. The amendment provided no extra "insurance" that the bill would not protect pedophiles. Pedophiles are already excluded based on the legal definition of sexual orientation. The amendment was hot air and political grandstanding.
As far as your second YouTube link, are you seriously suggesting that picketing a military funeral because the military fights for a country that is tolerant of homesexuality is an example of a hate crime against veterans? And this crime of picketing is equivalent to the murders and lynchings that are typically considered hate crimes?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh yes, the lynchings...
We should probably run out and pass a law that addresses tar and feathering too.
Umm, that event on you tube video was recent and on the internet, as opposed to lynchings, which are extinct and from a bygone era.
How would you feel if you were trying to bury your child who lost his life in defense of his country, and those kooks came out and screamed out at the top of their lungs how he ws going to burn in hell etc. If thats not hate?
Lynchings, is that what this is all about, lynchings? Huh?
Thank God you liberals are on the job!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Humor gets a +3. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hate
Oh, that's hate alright. It's disgusting, and the people that do it are vile. The thing is, it's not a crime. One of the things the soldier was defending when he lost his life was the First Amendment.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well then why don't you put your effort into preventing
things like that, creating law that makes it a crime to disrupt a funeral, or something useful, instead of this turd of a bill that address nothing.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Talking to the wrong guy
I said right from the start that I don't particularly support hate crimes legislation. It doesn't stick in my craw so much like it seems to with you, but I don't think it is particularly useful. It's just not that big of an issue for me.
The problem I have, and what I am putting an effort into preventing, is the bulls**t politicking and propoganda of trying to claim the Democrats are supporting pedophiles because they voted down a useless, redundant amendment that does nothing except vaguely insinuate that pedophilia is a subset of homosexuality. (Note: I am not saying that anyone on this board has made that insinuation.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Please explain how you came to this conclusion ...
Logically speaking, how does that amendment insinuate anything regarding homosexuality? It doesn't even mention homosexuality, does it? It only references sexual orientation which as we should all be completely aware of at this point references both heterosexuality and homosexuality, so why do you say it singles out homosexuality? You complain about me making stuff up but what the heck if this?
Fair enough. We all thank you for making that explicit. :)
And please explain precisely what you mean by this. Is it not a true statement that a subset of homosexuals are pedophiles? (And of course the same would also be true of heterosexuals as well?)
UPDATE:
After thinking about this for a bit I don't even think that the stereotypes involved support this interpretation. I think the more common image that comes up in people's minds when they hear the word pedophile is a middle aged man lusting for young girls.*
The only other common image I can conjure up that could be related to homosexuality is the Catholic Priest scandals, but in most cases I am aware of those involved older juveniles rather than younger ones, I believe, which isn't even consistent with your definition of pedophile. I'm not saying that there weren't any examples of youngerish kids, but I don't think that this was the majority ... but I could be wrong on that point.
When I think of homosexual males (not that I do this a lot) I generally get an image of adults not an adult and a young boy. Similarly when I think of lesbians I generally also think of adults and not an adult and a young girl. So I am truly at a loss as to how you keep making this particular connection.
UPDATE II:
The summary found here
seems to agree with my recollection:
As does a reference further down:
---------------------------------
* Not that this fits with the legal definition, of course. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here goes
Aargh, I just wrote a longish explanation, then accidently backed out of the page and lost it all.
Anyway, the gist was that "sexual orientation" as far as hate crime laws are concerned is virtually equivalent to homosexuality. (Yeah, I suppose there may be some hate crimes targeted at people because of their heterosexuality, but I really don't think there are many.) This amendment implies that pedophilia is in the same category as homosexuality, it's just a sexual orientation. And further, since it is mainly homosexuals that are protected, limiting that group of protected people to not include pedophiles indicates that pedophiles are a subset of homosexuals.
There are also lots of people in this country who think homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and this just reinforces that idea. It sets up an equivalency between homosexuality and pedophilia.
You have been historically unwilling to accept even the concept of implications, for the most part, so I don't expect you to accept this. I'm just explaining my thought process.
One last thing:
Is it not a true statement that a subset of homosexuals are pedophiles?
Which is not the same thing as saying that pedophiles are a subset of homosexuals.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Some reactions.
I don't see how you can say this, though. The definition clearly does NOT single out homsexuality. I guess you must be saying that the number of incidents of these purported hate crimes are committed against homosexuals but that is hardly the point. The protections provided in the law extend to everyone whether they are actually needed or not for a particular group. So the amendment cannot single out homosexuals without mentioning them by name, which it does not.
But this is true. Do you believe that pedophilia is a "choice" any more than homosexuality is? Do pedophiles one day wake up and say, you know, I think I'm gonna decide to be attracted to children? They are born with that orientation just as much as homosexuals are. Or do you disagree somehow? If so, why?
I personally wouldn't use the word disorder, but I am curious as to why you think homosexuality is different that pedophilia in terms of whether there is a choice involved. I suppose by disorder you mean to imply that pedophilia is not "normal" but homosexuality is "normal"? On what basis are you making that assessment? What makes the one "normal" and the other not given that in both cases the individuals are essentially born that way?
Actually I don't even want to presuppose what you might be thinking here, please just explain why you think that they are different within this context.
Which is, of course, part of my confusion. Do you honestly believe that any significant segment of society thinks that only homosexuals can be pedophiles?
Like I said above, I would argue that the "dirty old man" lecher lusting after little girls in the school yard is a more common image of a pedophile than is a homosexual one. Do you disagree? If so can you point me to anything to suggest that a significant segment of the population believes that all pedophiles are homosexuals (which is implied by your subset comment)?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Some replies to your reactions
That's why it is an implication. Like I said, I don't expect you to agree, because you have never ever accepted the validity of the concept of implication in any exchange I have ever had with you.
Well, the clear and obvious difference is that normal homosexual relations involve a choice on the part of both parties involved, whereas pedophiliac relations involve a choice made by one person and the other is a victim. Note I have from the beginning completely rejected your watered down definition of pedophilia, and am using the real definition here.
Not so much that belief, as a belief that all homosexuals are pedophiles. For example, there are certainly plenty of people who think it is okay for a heterosexual male to be a coach for a young girls sports team, but are leery of having a homosexual man coach young boys. Or, male girl scout leaders are rare, but allowed, whereas homosexual male boy scout leaders are not even allowed.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Heh.
Well at least I am consistent then.
It's not my watered down definition. It is the definition that is currently being used within the legal system today based on the actual prosecutions we are seeing related to the Child Pornography laws.
So, in your opinion, a 35 year old man who lures a 16 year old boy who looks young for his age into having consensual sex after trolling for for young boys on the internet chat rooms is not a pedophile?
Or if you prefer the heterosexual version, a 35 year old woman who is trolling specifically for 16 year olds who look young for their age (to take advantage of your pedophile protecting age loophole)?
Or how about a 40 year old man who likes to have his 16 year old girlfriend dress up like a little girl while they engage in consensual sex? Any pedophilia on the radar there?
And finally, you still haven't answered the $64,000 question. Do you beleive that pedophilia is a conscious choice or something innate like homosexuality which is beyond the control of the individual?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4$64,000 answer
No, it's not. As you have pointed out, there is no legal definition of pedophilia. And you can repeat it til you're blue in the face, but you saying that a child pornography conviction is a pedophilia conviction just does not make it true. They are just not equivalent. It's like saying a conviction for adult pornography (in places where that is illegal) is the same as being a rapist.
Regarding your scenarios, these people could very well have pedophilic tendencies but are repressing their urges in order to not do anything illegal, or they could be people who are attracted to young adults. If they are not doing anything illegal, then it really doesn't matter. If you have a problem with those activities, then you should contact your state legislature about raising the age of consent, or making it illegal to play dress-up in the bedroom. You'd probably have more luck with the former.
I think it is probably not a choice. Can I have my $64,000 now? The choice comes in acting on the innate urges, or repressing these urges so as to not bring harm to another individual.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
This is nonsense ...
Where have I said this? Its is nonsense because as YOU pointed out pedphilia is not even a crime, so one cannot be convicted of "pedophilia". I am saying that people convicted on Child Pornography violations are primarily pedophiles in the eyes of the law, whether that is consistent with the medical definition or not. It is silly for you to claim that pedophiles are not the primary consumers of Child Pornography. What group of sex offenders are most likely to be interested in or associated with Child Pornography? Who else is even interested?
So you are of the opinion that a pedophile is ONLY a pedophile if they act on their urges? In other words, in your mind there are no pedophiles who are not ALSO child molesters? That's what the above position seems to imply (there, see, I DO recognize implications!).
Personally I don't by that at all. Someone who is attracted to children is a pedophile whether they act on their urges or not. I have seen the distinction you are drawing discussed, however. In the case of pedophiles that act on their urges I have seen the term predatory pedophiles used (or at least that is what I think I remember seeing).
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes
This is, in fact, the medical definition of pedophilia.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Really?
Please establish that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where are you reading this "definition"?
As an easy counter to this notion, with a more definitive follow-up if needed after receiving your reply, I will simply refer you to the Wikipedia description
which includes references:
And the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the topic
:
It doesn't sound to me like the medical diagnosis requires that the pedophile have acted on their urges to be considered a pedophile. So where are you coming up with that?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm Feeling Lucky
1st link in google search for "medical definition of pedophilia"
One of the entries:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia
Pedophilia with a capital P [Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine]
Pedophilia
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You're arguing different postions that before, it seems.
This "nonsense" started when you tried defending Hannity's claim that revolved around pedophilia and/or sexual orientation meaning something different.
Now you're effectively going on with several long post saying the sky is blue during the daytime, mostly. Or you're making erroneous and irrelevant claims to try and sneak through the back door. Considering Hannity did the latter, and you tried to follow in his footsteps up thread.
------------------------------------------
Most people in Group A, are X.
People in Group A, that are X, receive harsher sentences than those in Group A that are not X.
People who are X, aren't protected under the Hate Crime law.
People that are in Group A, that are not X, are in Group A mainly to try and protect the chastity of teenagers.
All people in Group A are not legally speaking X.
----------------------------------------------
Statutory Rape laws and laws affecting sexual acts/activities involving minors were made to protect the chastity of minors.
Some states, those laws for older minors aren't applied if the minor was previously sexually active with other minors. Those exceptions don't apply if it's a case of a prepubescent child playing doctor.
-------
And if you've tried before to get you're foot in the door by pointing out that child pornography laws are in similar parts of state's revised codes. If you're argument was given light of day, murders would be called serial killers
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.01
The argument that most child pornography laws affect pedophiles is mute to any further argument.
As most people convicted of OVI are drunk drivers, but not all. A person legally and factually convicted of OVI could have never driven any kind of vehicle, ever.
All people convicted of OVI are not legally speaking convicted of driving (causing any kind of of motor vehicle to move) while intoxicated.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You seem to be laboring under a misconception ...
I don't have to show that these laws protect ALL pedophiles to provide Hannity right. I only have to show that they protect ONE, a mark which I have far exceeded at this point. Although most of this conversation is a digression from that narrow point.
We are arguing about what the definition of a pedophile is for some reason that eludes me, because it seems perfectly obvious to me that pedophiles are simply adults that are attracted to children. It's that simple.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry, not.
You haven't shown where any pedophile is likely to be protected, GoRight. You have only made a hypothetical case that imagines it. You have not demonstrated that this will happen with any legal authority, or even that it is likely to happen. You have not demonstrated that it's plausible... or even that it's unlikely but still realistically possible. All you've done is to envision a dubious circumstance. You, and Hannity, can not say that this bill would protect pedophiles. There is every reason to believe that, in practice, it would not.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
The Great Lie is being repeated for Hannity's sake
Actual pedophiles are not protected for being pedophiles.
A Jewish person that happens to be pedophile may be protected for being Jewish, but not for being a pedophile.
Your affliction with Don Quixote complex on this issue doesn't change the definition of words.
Pedophiles are attracted to kids before they reach puberty.
Your assertions are as ludicrous as you trying to claim that Coke, is indeed in fact an actual product made by Pepsi Co, because some people in the Carolinas call every pop/soda "Coke"
Your argument has no legs to stand on.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Full agreement
You say the word sex and 'the moral majority' goes off into perversion land, while claiming to hold the moral high ground on all the issues. It's bizarre.
I'm only half stupid
Fair enough, I am only interested in the former
...not the latter.
Not for partisan reasons, but in exposing the absurdity of the bill itself, and in it's hopeful, however unlikely termination, any de facto arguments regarding the amendment are inessential.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Let me further add...
Your extrapolation from a dictionary definition has no more legal weight than would my extrapolation from the medical definition. (Arguably less, but I won't push that point.) So at this point, yes, it's just a matter of opinion. The difference being that my definition actually makes sense and is consistent with the generally accepted idea that acting on pedophilic impulses would be criminal. Whereas your extrapolated definition is so watered down that such acts becomes perfectly okay. And that in itself is enough to invalidate your extrapolation, because it now disagrees with the original dictionary definition from which you started: sexual perversion in which...
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Assuming Hannity wasn't lying...
Hannities claims were based on him not knowing what the hell a pedophile was.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Outside of the legal system ...
we all know what a pedophile is. The point I am making is that the de facto definition INSIDE the legal system is out of step with the mainstream or the medical definitions. This is not an uncommon occurence with legal matters, BTW.
But within the context of the LEGAL definitions Hannity was correct.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You know Hannity doesn't know what he's talking about
You're saying that even after you cannot find a "LEGAL" definition of pedophiles?
People that commit statutory rape aren't convicted of a pedophile act for a reason, they aren't convicted/charged/arrested for pedophilia, they're arrested for having relations with a minor. Ignorance of what terms are doesn't change definitions, legally or otherwise
Pedophiles are one SUBSET of group.
"LEGALLY" speaking All pedophiles are sexual predators of minors. All sexual predators of minors are not pedophiles. People get convicted of different crimes when the minor is of a different age group for Christ's sake.
"STATUTORY RAPE LAWS BY STATE"
Notice a trend if you check that out? Acts committed with someone under 12 is generally treated different, odd huh? A 20 year old with a 14 year old is generally treated vastly different than some 17 year old with a 11 year old. If they're all pedophiles, why slap some pedophiles on the wrist? Arkansas only gives up to one year for some so called pedophiles, but 10 to 40 for what nearly every person with some knowlege would say is legally pedophilia.
Hannity was giving a quack commentary.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Also
People can get an OVI, when they never driven a car in their life.
Just because someone is a convicted of an OVI, does NOT mean they are a convicted drunk/intoxicated driver.
Someone sitting in the driver's seat of parked car is not a driver automatically.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
My argument is not related to stautory rape laws ...
which, of course, have nothing particularly in common with pedophilia. So stop trying to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant topics.
My argument is directly related to the Child Pornography laws which are, of course, very tightly coupled with pedophilia.
The two are completely different and unrelated sections of the law.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Read the last link....
What do you mean
My argument is directly related to the Child Pornography laws which are, of course, very tightly coupled with pedophilia.
Tightly coupled like battery and murder being compared, both result in the detriment of a person after all
Does that get Hannity even remotely closer to not being dead wrong?
Nope. Look below.
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV96.pdf
This guideline
has a base offense level of 25, a four-level enhancement if the offense
involved a minor under 12 and a two-level enhancement if the minor was 12 or older but had not
attained the age of 16.
I feel like Hannity said the sky is always appears to be some shade of blue or black, you defended him saying that he could make that argument then I wasted time pointing out all the other colors the sky appear to be and you denying each color.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm sorry, but I fail to see you point here.
And not a fake kind of fail to see but the really true and honest fail to see ...
The only people interested in the production and trafficking of child pornography are the pedophiles. Who else wants to own sexually explicit depictions of minors beside the pedophiles? To assert that these two (i.e. child pornography and pedophiles) are not related is absurd.
Perhaps we have miscommunicated here. Let me clarify my meaning:
"Completely different sections of the law" refers to the fact that rape or similar abuses are defined in Title 18 Chapter 109a of the federal code, whereas child pornography and similar exploitations of children are defined in Title 18 Chapter 110 of the federal code.
"Completely unrelated" refers to the fact that Title 18 Chapter 109a is discussing crimes related to the actual physical contact and abuse of minors, whereas Title 18 Chapter 110 is discussing crimes related to the exploitation of children in terms of forced prostitution and/or pornography. The law clearly separates this two concepts as evidenced by the fact that they are described in totally different chapters of the code.
You may find some incidental cross referencing for definitional purposes or whatever, but the classes of the crimes in these chapters are unrelated.
Just to show you that I actually read through your references a bit, here are a few quotes from the first one for your consideration:
Well, at least this reference agrees with me on the federal definition of the age of a child. Please note that 18 is the age of majority, as I stated. Can we put that one to rest now? Federal law considers anyone under the age of 18 to be a child. Period.
I don't know about you, but in my book that sounds like pedophiles.
I don't know about you, but in my book that sounds like pedophiles. Note that federal law considers anyone under 18 to be a child. Note also that this statement does not make any reference to prepubescent (although there are some such references in other contexts within the document).
I don't know about you, but if there is a debate about how graphic or explicit a given image must be to be considered Child Pornography, well, those that are so identified are probably the ones that would interest pedophiles. Note also that this does mention that depictions of prepubescent children are more likely to be considered child pornography, but not exclusively so. Images of older juveniles can still be considered child pornography.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like it is targeting pedophiles. Who besides pedophiles are interested in the production and possession of graphic sexual images of children?
Pubescent children fall within federal and most state statutes for Child Pornography. I don't know about you, but that sort of makes me say hmm. It sort of makes one think that age distinctions between prepubescent and pubescent aren't really important, legally speaking in this context.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4and again
he goes on and on with his misdirection into a new strawman territory, pornography.
The Hate Crimes Law does not protect criminals, whether they read child porn or not.
I'm only half stupid
What the heck is this even supposed to mean?
What is your basis for this statement? What are you even trying to say here?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It means exactly what it says
You keep trying to assert that the Hate Crimes Law protects pedophiles because ??? pedophiles read child porn? That's ridiculous. The law does not protect criminals. Period.
I'm only half stupid
Fine, where have I said it does?
No, but it does protect pedophiles who have sex with children over the age of consent. They aren't criminals as everyone keeps pointing out ... nor am I disputing.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What point are you trying to make again?
That all sex crimes of minors "could be argued are" done by only "legally speaking" pedophiles?
Wasn't that what you started out as?
The same laws that target drunk drivers also target people that get drunk and pass out in driver's seat with the keys on the floor.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And the price of tea in China is seasonal.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let me further reply ...
Hey, I don't necessarily disagree. But the problem with YOUR definition is that it leads to a definition that, at least IMHO, is clearly inconsistent with the actual convictions we are observing under the Child Pornography laws which, I'm sorry but you have to admit, were primarily designed and intended to address the issues surrounding pedophilia.
So, if the de facto LEGAL definition (since we don't have an explicit LEGAL definition) actually agreed with YOURS I would NOT expect to see 18 year old males being convicted of Child Pornography violations, yet we obviously are.
My definition is consistent with the actual observed convictions whereas yours is not, at least IMHO, and it is this observed discrepancy that swings the balance back to my side as far as a LEGAL definition goes.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Again, no
Child pornography is not equivalent to pedophilia, yet you continue to assert that they are. Your proof of that requires one to believe that child pornography convictions are equivalent to pedophilia convictions. It's a tautology.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And with this ...
I guess we really do agree to disagree.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4People talking past eachother again, it seems.
IMO, SL just said not all motor vehicles are cars, and drunk driving laws aren't designed to stop people driving "cars" drunk.
That's like saying "motor vehicles = cars"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Continuing that analogy
It seems to me that GoRight is using the fact that motorcycles have only two wheels, and that people driving a motorcycle drunk are convicted of drunk driving, to prove that cars have only two wheels.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
"What specific group of sex offenders ...
are Child Pornography laws trying to address?"
Addressing Young adults/older teens (mainly female "victims". [teenager is a relatively new term coined in the 1920's, look at the ages Jews have a Bar/Bat Mitavah]
Calling Pepsi, "Coke" because one lacks a word for pop/soda doesn't mean that Pepsi is Coke.
Most people, see a difference between people that partake in acts that would be done by ephebbophiles and acts done by pedophiles. Not unlike that there's a difference between battery and murder in the first degree. Both result in physical harm, both are punished, but they're not the same.
"Justifications for statutory rape laws"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You are right, it is an illness, one that makes them
susceptible to social discrimination, don't they deserve special protections too?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
So if a 16 year old girl
Bbcause pedophiles like prepubescent children, not children in the broader since. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-teen or younger.
R Kelly is not a pedophile
Gary Glitter is.
If any legal definition gives a different definition, then they got it wrong.
Flails aren't a mace, armored artillery isn't a tank, a M-16 isn't a machine gun, and people attracted to 16 year olds aren't pedophiles.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Legally speaking.
You are wrong. That's all I'm saying.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Can you find an actual legal
Can you find an actual legal definition pedophiles? Or have you already found one?
Slang that law enforcement uses doesn't count, ambulances aren't a bus
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Please try to read the things that you are replying to.
See here
.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4OK GR...
You seem to be arguing that a person who is sexually attracted to children, but nevertheless only has sex with people who are over the legal age of consent in their state can still be legally defined as a pedophile.
I just don't think that's the case.
The truth about pedophilia is that almost always involves attraction to prepubescent children.
And there is a disconnect here between child pornography laws and laws concerning the age of consent - particularly where electronic distribution is involved. We're already seeing a push to change child pornography statutes in a couple of states that have these types of cases. It clearly doesn't make sense for it to be legal for a person to have sex but illegal for that person to possess a naked image of his/herself. But, even if we take this as a permanent situation all it 'proves' is that it's a crime for a minor over the age of consent but not yet an adult to own or distribute images of minors over the age of consent but not yet adults.
But in any case -- the main thing that I think your case is missing is that, even if what you contend is granted for the sake of argument, a pedophile would still not be protected on the basis of being a pedophile unless all of these things are true: 1) Pedophilia is a sexual orientation as defined above b) People over the age of consent but not yet adults are nevertheless 'children' in the eyes of the law and c) An adult who has a sexual relationship with a minor over the age of consent but not yet an adult could be legally considered to be a Pedophile on the basis of that legal sexual attraction and legal sexual relationship.
The argument for each of this is flimsy individually, but when they are all predicated upon the validity of each other the whole thing just falls apart. It just isn't going to happen.
Again, what really gets me about this is that we're even wasting our time talking about it - it's just not sensible. And I agree with Spiritual Lefty -- it's a veiled attempt to link homosexuality with what are unquestionably aberrent and abhorrent sexual proclivities - like pedophilia and bestiality. It's like the infamous 'box turtle', 'man on dog' argument against gay marriage - it is an argument that is only advanced to inflame people.
And I know that I will have convinced you of nothing, and will have convinced no one else of anything, and that we'll still be hearing about this bill protecting pedophiles while it doesn't protect veterans from the GOP, until they finally realize that their argument isn't working on anybody.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Short list of different
Short list of different philias dealing with age
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
This just in: facts are stubborn things.
Sorry, but as I have already shown people are convicted of this on a regular basis already today. People engaged in the creation and distribution of Child Pornography are considered pedophiles from a legal perspective. That's why they have to register as sex offenders. Sex offenders. Why do we have laws requiring people to register as sex offenders? Who are we requiring to register as sex offenders and why?
This may be true in a medical sense but it is most certainly NOT true in a legal sense which is what I am discussing.
So you agree that as things stand today what I am saying is true then? If that were not the case then there would be no reason to push for a change, right?
First of all, I am discussing things as they stand today, not some hypothetical time in the future where things have changed.
Second you conclusion is patently incorrect. It is currently illegal for anyone to possess and distribute Child Pornography. There is no age limit that I am aware of. Clearly if a 35 year old man distributes naked photos of a 16 year old girl or boy they are going to be charged. I should think that much obvious to all.
The only reason I raise the sexting issue at all is to demonstrate that in the current legal system a 16 year old boy or girl is still considered a "child" from a Child Pornography point of view. If they weren't no one would be convicted of possessing or transmitting their photos.
So we are clearly in a situation where from a rape perspective a 16 year old is allowed to given consent in some states, but from a child pornography perspective they are still considered children. So, technically speaking in a legal sense anyone over the age of emancipation that has sex with such a person is a pedophile. This is not a difficult concept.
I am not saying it is right or wrong that things are this way, I am just stating the fact that they ARE this way under the current legal definitions and precedents. As a result, Baldwin is wrong and Hannity was right.
Sorry, but you don't just get to assert things like this. I have provided examples and precedents that clearly establish what I am saying is already true and it is not hypothetical. If you think that the facts and precedents I have laid out are factually incorrect, then please show me where. Otherwise I respectfully disagree with your stated conclusion if that conclusion is somehow based on the evidence I have presented.
I take no particular position on this other than what I already have. I have clearly and unequivocally stated that homosexuality and pedophilia are in no way linked. If you have a clearer way to state that let me know. My only purpose here is to support the logical and actual truth of what Hannity said and refute what Baldwin said. My motives have nothing to do with homosexuals. How can I make it any clearer than that? If you think they do please show me anywhere in this thread where I have demonized homosexuals or heterosexuals, either one?
Given that I have not attempted to make any such connections I would say that your continued assertions thereof without any evidence to back it up calls you own motives into question here, does it not?
Meh.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah....
.. we're done here. Happy times.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
If a 35 man old has relations
If a 35 man old has relations with 16 year old, is that man a registered sex offender or a registered pedophile?
Can you think of reason why ephebophiliacs that like them in the younger category would become the registered sex offenders you are looking for?
So wouldn't that 35 year old man is a ephebbophile in the legal sense?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Of course...
.... but I don't think that matters to anyone whose purpose is to shank this bill in the kidneys by, you know, making a bunch of crap up.
I guess it would behoove our legislators to define every term in the most minute, exhaustive detail so that it can't be purposefully misconstruted for political purposes. Though there is zero chance that any court would ever use this bill to define pedophiles as a protected class based upon their pedophilia, I suppose that it's important to nail all of this down to Hannity's satisfaction, lest we be forced to continue to hear him bark about this until our heads explode.
Then again, maybe I'm just giving judges too much credit for common sense. Maybe we do have a bunch of judges on the bench who are basically organic Babbage difference engines with rusty gears, who won't have the computing power to figure out the difference between legal sexual orientation and illegal sexual predation. The Democrats are probably aware of all this, and are likewise probably hoping that their evil plan to grant protected status to pedophiles while denying that status to our fine veterans will succeed.
*Edit -- Sorry. I said I was done, and now I've posted an unseemly screed. Now I'm done.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
The audacity of lies.
It's galling, that anyone would assert these kind of idiotic falsehoods, let alone defend them as gospel.
Even worse is that the steady drip drip drip has people enthusiastically believing (??) that democrats are so evil that they would give special rights to pedophiles.
Anyone who likes spicy mustard has to be a godless librul who would defend pedophiles and not veterans, because apples are falling off the liberty tree.
It is the science of deception.
It is not surprising that GoRight stepped up to the plate to poke sticks in the eyes of democrats, who are so evil they would do (xxx). That is what he lives for. =)
Though I might add at some point perpetrating these kinds of lies, knowing that there is a segment of our society that is mentally unstable, can be dangerous. It's the kind of thing that incites hysteria.
Some people might be inspired to for the sake of 'the greater good' go on a killing spree, to rid the earth of libruls who support pedophiles and minorities who are stealing your job.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/brockton/news/police_and_fire/x1393564889/VID...
I believe in free speech, but it seems like there should be at least a minimal effort by those such as Hannity to not distort the truth so badly, as to possibly incite violence.
I'm only half stupid
Yes, indeed, the audacity of lies ...
Please highlight for me any quote relevant to this context and discussion (and probably anywhere for that matter) where Hannity has endorsed or incited people to violence.* Please back up that assertion or retract it.
Put up, or shut up.
----------------------------------------------
* Statements taken out of context or stated in jest or satire do not count. I am talking about actual statements where he is undeniably inciting people to violence.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR, you know better than this
...ML has failed to provide a single lucid post here at SC as evidenced by the example you are attempting to discuss with her, let alone going so far as to comprehensively attend to one.
Why do this to yourself?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
If you or
Mr. Hannitity can make, and then as you yourself have, defend, the grossly distorted case that democrats and Obama are trying to organize society around the principles of giving 'extra rights' to pedophiles (which is a lie), then I can certainly build a case that portraying democrats thusly is appealing to peoples prejudices in a way that could incite real violence.
If as Hannity has done, all you have to do is make sh*t up and put it out there in the ether, and then say, well defend yourself from the charge, I can certainly claim that Hannity's vile words are in line with provoking rage which could lead to real violence.
But isn't that the point, dear Mr. GR of Hannity's comments, to demonize democrats. more than likely much to your delight.
Are you seriously suggesting that from the hints and farts spouted from Hannity's orifices, that Obama is a socialist/fascist to his offering quote unquote extra civil liberties to pedophiles doesn't rile up an unbalanced fringe to go get their second amendment protected weapon and hunt them down some evil, America hatin, pedophile loving, libruls?
Go ahead, act surprised and innocent that Hannity might be on a media campaign to dehumanize democrats. Is it blantant, In this case yes. It is there as a subtle (or not) steady message to those in the 'club and it's fringe'? Democrats the incarnation of godless evil and would defend pedophiles before they would defend veterans. The whole idea is rankly absurd, disgustingly offensive, and absolutely not true.
I'm only half stupid
Replies.
Well, to be fair, I HAVE provided substantive arguments to defend his position. I simply want you to provide some substantive argument to defend yours or I am going to cry foul.
Possibly true, but no more so than how the comments from the Democrat leadership are meant to demonize Republicans. People who live in glass houses should, perhaps, consider throwing less stones if they don't like having THEIR windows broken.
There are a couple of problems with this:
Our "fringe" is not unbalanced in the sense that you mean it here.
Even if they were, this is hardly an issue that they would be reaching for their guns over, but it IS an issue that is worth keeping the record straight on.
Sorry, ML, but the fact remains that the Democrats voted down an amendment that would have explicitly excluded pedophiles from any protections under this bill. That speaks for itself. It is likewise true that the bill does NOT offer protections for veterans (unless you care to point me to where it does). This too speaks a great deal. So I think that your claims here are a fair bit shy of the truth in this case.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No you haven't
All you have defended is a strawman.
Pedophilia when acted on is a criminal act.
The hate crimes law does not protect criminals.
Homosexuality is legal between consenting adults.
You and Hannity are intentionally conflating sexual orientation to mean something that is criminal. Gay sex between consenting adults is not a crime.
The military has its own set of rules, that do not always apply to civilians. Civilians are not required to shave their head for example. One of those military rules is 'don't ask don't tell'. Technically there are no gay people in the military. How can you have a hate crimes law in the military to protect people that are invisible? (Not a good reflection on the military, imho)
Using the word pedophile is interchangable with the word deviant criminal. It is a lie to substitute the word pedophile for homosexual. It was intentionally misleading and blatantly dishonest.
To further extrapolate the pedophile loving democrats who hate the military are words that could send some who already hate a black librul democrat President, not even a citizen, who is stealing their tax money to give welfare to lazy people and to protect pedophiles, etc., etc. No matter how you cut it it is disgusting beyond words.
I'm only half stupid
Yea yea.
Big talk. Little action.
Show me where anyone being discussed here said pedophile = homosexual. They didn't.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4sexual orientation baby
It's a descriptive word isn't it.
pedophiles are sexually oriented to children
Necrophiliacs are sexually oriented to dead bodies
It's all sexual orientation. Just ask Pat Robertson.
The hate crimes law does not protect criminals.
A pedophile who acts on their urges is a criminal.
The Hate Crimes Law specifically describes sexual orientation as
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/docdownload/hcact82206.pdf
Steve King of Iowa introduced a a bogus amendment to include the word pedophile, which was completely unnecessary as sexual orientation had already been defined. It was a political stunt and nothing more. Typical Republican games.
It reminds me of the attempt to portray democrats as godless death merchants, by rallying the whole of Congress to vote on weather to keep a woman who had been brain dead for years and years alive. If the dems vote no, then they can be gloriously labeled the 'party of death'. You do remember Terri Schiavo, don't you.
I'm only half stupid
And since minor's of certain
And since minor's of certain ages cannot consent, pedophilia is legally not consensual.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But only for that subset of minors ...
that cannot legally give consent. Adults who are sexually attracted to children over the age of consent but still under the age of majority are still pedophiles under the law as it is being prosecuted and for which convictions are being obtained.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why do Republicans hate teenagers?
According to our resident Republican, GoRight, the Republicans introduced an amendment which would have the following effect:
A black 17-year old walking down the street with his white 16-year old girlfriend is brutally murdered by a gang of neo-Nazi skinheads, his body nailed to a cross with a sign that says "this is what happens to n*****s who take our women." This would not be considered a hate crime according to the Republicans, but it would be if the man and his girlfriend were both in their 20s.
Fortunately, the Democrats are in control and voted down this travesty of an amendment.
So really, why do Republicans hate our children so much?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Umm, that's because that crime is already.... a crime.
The net deal is;
Democrats want to create sub-classes and specials protections for some...
It it wrong. It is indeterminable, and therefore literally unenforceable, and as I have said, unconstitutional.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Not the point
We are not discussing the validity of the entire bill. This Republican amendment does not eliminate the concept of hate crime laws, it merely prevents 17 year olds with 16 year old girlfriends from being protected by them. Why do Republicans hate our children so?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hence the reference, "The net deal is"
...but actually, more specifically, here is the real point
.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
This is such a crock.
This is not what I have claimed in the slightest. More reductio ad absurdem, I guess. But not just any reductio ad absurdeum, you have invented strawman reductio ad absurdeum.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is this an example of
reductio ad absurdeum
? I think you may have been the one to point me to the wikipedia article on that one, no?
Or perhaps it is reductio ad Hitlerum
? (Because of the neo-nazi reference.)
I think if you review this thread you won't find me making any appeals to race, or to neo-nazis, or asserting anything regarding individuals where they are both over the age of majority.
So I am left wondering why you posted this?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You started with the absurdity
You are the one defining pedophile as including anyone sexually interested in a 16-year old. The Republicans you are defending are the ones who are trying to get pedophiles to be not protected by the hate crime laws. Putting two and two together, you are saying the hate crime laws should not protect anyone sexually interested in a 16 year old. What part of this is misrepresenting your argument?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What's sad is that
so eager to believe.
This whole story is a great big fat strawman worthy of the Turd Award for lack of journalistic integrity.
I'm only half stupid
The hate crime law also
The hate crime law also wouldn't protect little Vick from being hated for also liking them young. Doesn't mean Marcus Vick is a pedophile.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Is it the ...
homosexual part or the heterosexual part of that definition that you believe excludes pedophiles?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The part that
says consensual homosexuals and heterosexuals.
given the definition of sexual orientation meaning "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," it is absolutely clear that that could not include pedophilia.
I'm only half stupid
Really?
Why do you say that? From a legal perspective it does not seem perfectly clear at all. Are you asserting that there are no children that can legally give consent?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Kiss Jesus
said the priest, or die and go to hell.
What would you do if you were 9?
I'm only half stupid
It is a simple question, just answer it honestly.
Are you asserting that there are no children that can legally give consent?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Dude, seriously.
At best:
You're trying to get your foot in the door by hoping that ML doesn't use lawyer speak in her reply.
At worst:
You're trying to bust your way in the front door by poorly stating your question.
A prepubescent would not be granted to the right to consent to sexual relations, nor the guardians would be granted the right to provide consent for them.
Do you realize that Child Pornographers are treated differently based on the child's age? That people that would be considered pedophiles, are sentence and prosecuted more harshly?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
He's...
... saying that anyone who hasn't reached the age of majority in their state is a child. Then, by extension, he's saying that anyone between the age of consent and the age of majority is a child, therefore anyone who has sex with a person between the age of consent and the age of majority is a pedophile.
Which would mean that, since the age of majority is 21 in Mississippi, that anyone in Mississippi that has sex with a 20 year old is a pedophile.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Errr...
Please explain.
Because it is true crimes against children are often provided for with serious consequences. and it may be true, I don't know, that the age enhances consequences in pedophile cases, those laws are the same for all in those groups.
For instance enhanced fines in construction zones or breaking the speed limit in greater degree's could be said of the same way, but you, I and whomever else speeds in that zone, or does 90 in a 65 zone will receive the same enhancement.
So, if I understand you point, you are making the case for special punishment, but as we see, that is not the case with your illustration really, because with this legislation murder for instance is not prosecuted equally, if you and I, in two unrelated murders, shot and killed a 36 year old white male in Dallas Texas while robbing him on the street, and all else being equal, you would suffer greater culpability than I... should your 36 year old male in Dallas happen to be gay.
Unfair, unreasonable, and most importantly, unconstitutional.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Laws/sentencing guidelines
Laws/sentencing guidelines are generally grouped;
To those under under 12 and those over 12.
IMO, your construction zone example even works fine into that grouping category based on >12 and <12.
Those under 12 would more like the construction zone speeding.
Those over 12 would be more like generally speeding.
The construction zone speeding is seen as worse act.
The way I see it, the law is intended to take affect only if I would not have targeted the person if not for them being gay.
ie someone needs money and almost considers robbing someone, sees some likely rich person walking down the street, decides to walk by and do nothing and not rob them, notices that it's George Michael, and then robs GM because GM is gay.
The crime would of not happened if not for GM being gay.
The issue of if a crime would have been otherwise committed randomly, but a single target was chosen because of "hate" then, if I were a prosecutor, would not try and get a hate crime charge, I'm not sure if the law would cover that case.
I don't think it should be a hate crime if a crime would have otherwise been committed. ie someone wants to mug people, and decides to camp out at a public restroom in the park because they think they are more likely to mug a gay person that they hate.
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Errrr.....
You consistently give special treatment to murder by beheading, giving it extra weight as >worse than< other types or murder to justify special punishment.
The hate crimes law is not to justify special punishment. Your emphasis on punishment is wrong. The emphasis is on prosecution.
The hate crimes law is to ensure prosecution if there is prejudice in the local community not to prosecute.
I'm only half stupid
No it is not, but let's just say that you were right for once
Why all the drama ML, why do it this way?
Why not simply have a bill to strengthen prosecutions in the country, or hot line that citizens could report to in order to let the fed know if in their jurisdictions laws were going unpunished so they could investigate them?
I'll tell you why, because there are already laws, and crimes are not going un-prosecuted. If they were people have avenues, call the FBI...
This is the Mathew Sheppard Law and his murders got as harsh a punishment as one can receive without the death penalty being invoked. SO this is all bogus, more social engineering, when will you guys learn?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Murder by beheading
why all the drama and hand wringing over one culture's death penalty, beheading? A murder by any other name is still a murder.
The guys who did 9/11 are all in jail for life. They got their punishment. It's over. Why all the extra stigma against a culture different that what you understand?
I'm only half stupid
Really?
The guys who did 9/11 are all in jail for life. They got their punishment. It's over. Why all the extra stigma against a culture different that what you understand?
When did this happen? I thought that they hadn't even been tried yet ... at least some of them.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Tried on what charges with what
evidence.
They are terrorists enemy combatants. According to Dick that is all we need to know.
How can they be tried if there is no evidence that passes legal muster against them. They are simply detaineed for life, presumably.
I'm only half stupid
Muslim law=Beheading for being a journalist
American law=Lethal injection for murder.
Your post is utterly meaningless.
Think ML, think! (Before you post.)
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Crickets, ML?
Are you asserting that there are no children that can legally give consent?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Quit picking on the defenseless
...as I told you, and as you already knew, she's incapable of making a quality, or defending a poor comment, why persist in humiliating her, and frustrating yourself?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I would
appreciate it if you would butt out, unless you have something to add to the conversation, other than insults.
I'm only half stupid
Ah ha...whats good for the goose
What happened to the sanctimonious ML of a day or so ago who rattled off some vacuous comment when posed with the same request, hmm?
Let us just leave it at this then my unhinged little friend, suffice it to say, from this point going forward;
It would behoove you to keep the rabid double-talk that is forever emanating from within the belfry where that diminutive intellectual quotient divinity bestowed upon you is kept - to yourself.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Being rude
doesn't make you right.
Although you seem to think so.
My mistake was responding to you, in the first place.
I'm only half stupid
I'm rude, huh? Ok. Well then, face yourself ML, we have to.
You possess a feeble aptitude for examining the issues, that unfortunate trait has compounded your penchant for partisan histrionics. (Not a good combination) Sadly this has resulted in a lamentable record of recidivism for the voluble, persistent, and inconsequential comment here at SC.
It may be rude in your eyes, I'd like to think of it as being honest, and being so in the sincere hope of sparing us all suffering any more of the above.
I mean, which is "rude" really?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I'm sorry Centinel ...
But this reads just like BR's soapbox. For what it's worth. Consider it constructive criticism.
Meta: This post is a semi-serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey GR - I know it does, and in this isolated case, it should.
BR's issue, IMO, was not so much that he called anyone on their sh!t, that in and of itself is okay and productive for the site, such as it is in this one particular instance.
His issue was, that was all he seemed to want to do, to everyone, all the time, regardless if whether it was warrnted, or not. lol.
You know what I mean.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
OK, fair enough.
I agree that you bring a much higher content to BS ratio than did he.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't want to pick on her, she invites it, then cries foul
Actually, I read a couple places where you too castigated her fairly severely.
Just as a matter of fact for the record, there is no shortage of SC members just that I have found in such short order who have taken issue with her around the same lines, so.
You think I was too forward? How else to get someone's attention, I mean really GR, would you want to be looked upon like she is?
She needs direction bro, you know it s well as I do.
I suppose being the last in line to issue a protest, and having asserted my point clearly enough, I will let it lie for now then.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I am saying
that the Hate Crimes Law does not protect criminals, specifically pedophiles.
I'm only half stupid
Yes, I know that, but ...
I am trying to ascertain the logical basis for your assertion.
Are you asserting that there are no children that can legally give consent?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Legal consent
Well, anyone having legal consentual sexual relations with these "children" wouldn't be criminals, now would they? Anyone having non-consentual sex with children is already not covered by the hate crime laws. So this foolish amendment does nothing but prevent these non-criminals from protection. As in the scenario that you called absurd. Of course it is absurd, because it is a direct consequence of an absurd amendment!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Not so.
Not for the actual sex, no, but they could certainly be guilty of any number of other crimes. For example, if they videotaped the whole thing while having that consensual sex they would still be guilty of violations of Child Pornography laws ... which I have been arguing specifically address pedophiles.
Besides, your point doesn't change the fact that they are still having sex with children, under the law, and so are pedohiles regardless of whether that act was illegal or not. Remember, as you yourself pointed out, pedophilia is NOT a crime in and of itself.
Also, you miss the entire point of the hate crimes legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to protect people from attacks against themselves simply because they are a member of one or more of the protected groups.
Clearly if a 35 year old man was beaten, injured, or killed because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old boy (in a location where the age of consent is 16) he, or his family if he were killed, would be able to invoke the protections of this legislation and pursue all legal means afforded to him under these laws. Correct? Without the amendment this is unquestionably true simply because he could claim to be nothing more than a homosexual and not even have to rely on his being a pedophile.
With the amendment in place, however, a case certainly could be made that while the individual was indeed a homosexual he was ALSO a pedophile and thus he would be specifically excluded from these protections. Correct?
(Note the above example works just as well with the analagous heterosexual situation.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Incorrect.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
What is it that makes something a sexual orientation?
I thought it was the proposition that one's sexual preferences are innate and not a choice. Is this incorrect, or is there some other criteria that are being used here?
Assuming that is the case, are you then asserting the pedophilia is actually a conscious choice whereas homosexuality is not?
What exactly is the basis for your distinction?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are shifting your argument....
.... into medical definitions now? I'm not an MD or a Psychologist, but my layman's opinion is that Pedophilia is a mental illness akin to Sociopathy, and Homosexuality is not.
I'm also not an attorney, but my layman's opinion is that your legal argument is marked by tortured reasoning, hair-splitting, and faulty logic.
What I have not yet seen that I'd like to see are some opinions from folks in the legal profession who have enough academic or practical experience with the law to provide competent, thoughtful commentary on all of this, but who do not have a political axe to grind.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I am not shifting my argument ...
I am exploring an aspect of the discussion that we haven't yet addressed. Is it OK with you if I do so?
All of your personal disclaimers have been duly noted. Let us continue our conversation:
Getting back to my main question, what is it that makes something a sexual orientation?
Is pedophilia a conscious choice or is it innate like homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What is love Symposium
After the fact Platonic attempts at changing definitions past the breaking point, doesn't change the meanings of words as they were used before.
It doesn't matter if pedophilia is innate in relation to previous discussions in this thread.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
True, but only sort of ...
This is literally true because the previous discussions in this thread have not discussed what makes something a sexual orientation or not. You introduced the need to explore that topic in more detail a couple of posts up. But I disagree with your assessment that it is not important to know whether pedophilia is innate, or not, when discussing whether it should be considered a sexual orientation in its own right.
I am not changing the definitions of anything. I am discussing the de facto definitions of the words as they apply to the law and court decisions related to those laws as they existed prior to the start of this thread. I am reviewing both the text of the laws themselves as well as court rulings that are associated with those laws in order to determine what the definition is given that no explicit definition has been provided.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Neither, I guess.
I think it's a mental illness. I think it's very unlikely that it's innate. I think it may be the product of a combination of developmental disorders and environmental factors. But I don't really know.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia
The article goes on to say that pedophilia is associated with some kind of deep insecurity, and is ultimately about power and control -- very much like rape.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Does this mean you think it is "curable"?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No.
I don't think there's any real consensus that any mental illnesses are 'curable'. Many respond well to treatment. This one apparently isn't even particularly treatable, according to what I'm reading. Most personality disorders aren't easily treated -- I gather that this may fall into that category... but I'm a little out of depth here. *Edit -- To clarify, I don't think that this is 'curable' in much the same way that I don't think that rapists or serial spousal abusers can be cured.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
So I am still unclear on how and why you are making ...
a distinction between pedophilia as a sexual orientation and the other more traditional ones.
Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are choices, and neither is "curable" in the sense that they can be readily changed. Pedophlia is not a choice, and it appears to be likewise incurable in the sense that it cannot be readily changed.
So from an operative and a clinical perspective where's the difference? As far as I can tell you are drawing an artificial distinction without any real difference.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is...
.....rapist a sexual orientation?
It's pathological, GoRight. There is a perpetrator, and a victim. It is by its very nature not consensual, despite your protestations to the contrary. Your 'reasoning' with respect to this argument is a string of logical fallacies, one after another.
You know this as well as I do.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
That's not the issue dudes, there are though some to consider
Read more at CATO
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I said right up front...
.... that I don't really like this bill. I don't even want to be arguing about it. In fact, I wouldn't be arguing about if the GOP hadn't come up with this poisonous political stunt of asserting that it protects pedophiles.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
This is not even comparable.
1) Rape is a crime, pedophilia is not.
2) Rape says nothing about one's preferred sexual object, whereas pedophlia, homosexual, and heterosexual are all used to describe exactly that.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's absolutely comparable.
1) You seem to think that pedophila is only a desire for children. Pedophilia isn't only a descriptor -- it's also refers to the 'act' itself -- as in an 'act of pedophilia'. You seem to be very fond of dictionary definitions -- so look it up. A sexual desire for children that is not acted upon is not a crime. As Spiritual Lefty has said, a person is not legally a pedophile unless that person has committed an act of pedophilia. An 'act' of pedophila is always a crime.
2) Rape absolutely says something about the preferred sexual object -- in this case, a 'helpless person' that has been subdued by violence or the threat of violence and is forced to have sex against his/her will. Gender is usually a factor -- age and physical appearance generally are not.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Are you looking for more
straw. =)
Isn't that a bit of a redundant question. Legal consent is legal.
As I said the Hate Crimes Law does not protect criminals, ie: pedophiles.
I'm only half stupid
But that's not what I asked ...
The question remains, are you asserting that there are no children that can legally give consent?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If a person
can legally give consent, then we can assume that according to the state law, where they reside they are not considered children.
Your question still seems redundant.
I'm only half stupid
Bzzzt.
I have already demonstrated that, at least as far as federal law is concerned, there IS a disconnect between the age of consent and the age of majority. For the case of whether someone is considered to be a child or not, it is the age of majority that matters.
Please try again ... if you think you can come up with a better approach.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I have stated
clearly that the Hate Crimes Law does not protect criminals, ie: pedophiles.
I stand by my statement.
Legal consent means exactly that.
Since there is no case that will ever be brought forth under the hate crimes law, that defends a pedophile for molesting a child, your quandry over the consent argument is irrelevant.
I'm only half stupid
But of course it does.
No one is disputing that. The question is, can a child give consent for sexual acts in some states?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Reread your question
and see if it makes sense.
According to individual state laws, a person who is considered of age to consent to sexual acts is not considered a child.
I'm only half stupid
Not actually true...
I don't think this is true. If we adhere to the letter of this reasoning, then 20 year olds in Mississippi are children. But clearly, a 20 year old Mississippi woman can pose for Playboy without being prosecuted for child pornography. She hasn't reached the age of majority in her state -- but she's clearly also not a child.
You've been arguing that a person under the age of majority, but over the age of consent, is legally a child with respect to pornography laws. That's not true in Mississippi. It's also not true in Nebraska or Alabama. I think your argument is flawed.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
You are correct for the case of Mississippi.
While I would have thought that this would be understood, I will restate my original position with additional clarifying text:
This statement should not be surprising to anyone. After all, what is the age of majority defined to be? *
It appears that in Mississippi they have chosen to be particularly concerned with establishing the ages associated with various statutes. So, in the case of the statutes related to exploitation of children (which includes the child related pornography statutes), we have:
So, in Mississippi as you say, a 20 year old women is not a child with respect to posing nude for Playboy because the relevent statutes explciitly set the age to something other than the age of majority in that state. However, just to illustrate that my claim is not prima facia ridiculus, she IS a child with respect to her non-custodial parent having to pay child support to the custodial parent:
Now, while reading about the laws of Mississippi is interesting it is a bit of a red herring
in that I was discussing the federal code, not that of Mississippi specifically.
I have already acknowledged that my statement is not universally true, but only applies to states which have an age of consent that differs from the age of majority AND which have not otherwise explicitly stated something to the contrary for a particular statute.
You may, or may not, be correct on these points. I won't both to check because my point is not invalidated even if you are correct. My argument does NOT rely upon my statement being true in every state.
-----------------------------------------------------
* Age of Majority
:
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And....
..... here's what you miss, every time you argue this point -- and it really shouldn't be necessary for anyone to have to point this out to you:
With respect to 'exploitation of children' the federal law takes precedence. The federal law mandates that pornography not depict anyone under the age of 18. So anyone under 18 is considered a child with respect to pornography. This does not mean that the person is legally considered to be a child with respect to every other right.
With respect to 'consent' the state law takes precedence. The state laws vary. In states where consent is granted earlier than 18, anyone who is 'of age' with respect to consent is not legally a child with respect to consent.
We may as well add:
With respect to 'voting rights' the federal law grants the authority at age 18. With respect to voting rights, a person who is 18 or older is not considered to be a child. That same person, if he/she lives in Mississippi, is legally considered to be a child with respect to marriage, but is not considered to be a child with respect to consent, as the age for consent is 16.
With respect to 'public alcohol consumption' the state law takes precedence -- even though each state has voluntarily changed the age to 21 to keep federal highway funding.
With respect to 'marriage' the state law takes precedence.
These rights are all granted at different times, under different statutes, by either the state or federal authoritiy. It is not 'one size fits all'. If it were, there would be no consent under 18 in any state, would there? What state would grant consent to children?
Edit : And remember, the only reason we're arguing this in the first place is becase you assert that any person under 18, even if that person is over the age of consent in their state, is a child with respect to consent. You argue this so you can say that anyone who has sex with that person is technically a 'pedophile'. It is a logical fallacy -- it does not follow -- as you have pointed out above yourself.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
LOL
OK, read on ...
Correct. I agree 100%.
This is not technically correct. This is only correct if the statute specifically states that with respect to consensual sex the individual is no longer a minor (i.e. a child). Stating that a 16 year old child can legally give consent to have sex is not the same thing as saying they are no longer a child. It merely means that they are considered old enough to give consent for sex. I disagree that this means that they are considered an adult.
Why do they have two different legal concepts then? The age of majority si the age at which one transitions from childhood to adulthood. The age of consent is the age at which one is legally allowed to be able to give consent for sex. That says nothing about transitioning you from a legal status of child to a legal status of adult.
I believe that you are incorrect in your assertion that the age of consent has any legal implications in terms of one technically being a child or an adult. Show me a statute that makes this claim (i.e. that upon reaching the age of consent that they are then considered adults. Can a 17 year old legally give consent to have photographs take of themselves while engaged in consensual sex? If they were actually adults they certainly would be, but of course they are not.
The law in most states gives 16 year olds the privilege of driving on public highways. Does this mean that those 16 year olds are no longer minors with repect to traffic laws and the financial responsibilities of the parents?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL? Ok.
You're probably right. I think I am incorrect on that point. Thanks for pointing that out. But that still doesn't mean that the bill protects pedophiles.
So I'm just going to reiterate my opinion: Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a mental illness where the victims are prepubescent children, and a true act of pedophilia is a criminal act.
A person who is involved in a sexual relationship with a minor over the age of consent is not legally a pedophile or a sex offender. A conviction under child pornography statutes does not make someone a pedophile; it makes them a sex offender. There is a distinction. You can insist that it's 'obvious' that this person is a pedophile, but you have not proved it. If your argument has any merit it is only in a very narrow and highly dubious semantic sense, not in a practical sense. That's my opinion.
As to the real motivation for King's amendments, this seems about as likely to me as anything I've read:
Source: http://crooksandliars.com/node/27934
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I think we have run around the mulberry bush enough ...
Let us just agree to disagree. I think we know at this point where each truly stands on some of these finer points.
And in so doing they start us down the slippery slope into the realm of thought control and thought criminalization. In that sense this is a sad thing for America. What kinds of governments punish their citizens for what they think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4See there..
... I think, finally, we may have some room for agreement -- which is not to say that I don't think that certain types of crimes against individuals are sometimes intended to do broader damage. But I don't know how a court reliably judges bias in the absense of an outright confession. There are similar state laws on the books; I should probably read up on a few cases to see how this works in practice, I guess.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
This is complete Bullpucky
All crimes start with a thought.
I thought about writing a check to myself on my bosses account. I thought about how hard it would be to forge his signature.
I thought about what she (the 14 year old) would look like naked, and imagined what it would be like if......!
You are free to think whatever you want. It is when you act on such thoughts by raping a 14 year old or writing the check, that counts.
I hope people are really not so stupid as to buy into this thought control garbage, because that is exactly what it is ....... garbage.
I'm only half stupid
You miss the point, ML.
You are not simply punishing people for committing the acts. You are enhancing the punishment based on what they think on a legislated set of topics. It is this latter part that constitutes thought control, not the punishment for the crime part.
You are, in effect. making it a crime to think thoughts that the state deems inappropriate. Personally I don't want the state telling me what I am allowed to think, or not. And make no mistake, when you write a statute that increases the punishment for committing an act based solely on what someone is thinking, that's thought control.
Today it is what you think about someone's race that is demonized. Tomorrow it might be what you think about the color of their hair or eyes that is demonized. The next day it might be what you think about their political ideology. Open this Pandora's box and any manner of evil is likely to crawl out. Better to keep the box shut tight.
But of course these Democrats (i.e. the current Congress and President) like their authoritarian tactics, don't they? *
---------------------------------------
* Note: I am using the dictionary definition of the term authoritarian.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4BINGO....baby?
There are indeed already laws to enforce crimes ML, be it sexual molestation of a child, or physical violence against any individual for any reason, but most importantly, and conspicuously enough, our Constitution ensures all of us equal protection under those laws!
This ill considered, regressive bill, is more about creating divisions and inequalities than it would be anything close to the inverse.
Not a good precedent for our country.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
You want some lies ML
Help yourself.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
No he wouldn't.
Perhaps I have not been clear, so let me define the term "legal sense" as I am using it here:
So pointing to medical definitions is meaningless in this context since they are NOT definitive in a legal sense.
I just did a search and neither the the word ephebbophile nor the word ephebbophilia appear anywhere in the US federal code
. So, legislatively speaking (at the federal level), neither of these terms even exist in a legal sense. *
If you are aware of any court cases which make reference to these terms please point them out. I will be more than happy to give them all due consideration.
----------------------------------------------------
* The same cannot be said of pedophile and/or pedophilia. Both terms appear in the code although neither is given a specific legal definition.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Everything carbonated drink is not Coke
Have you found any legal source that gives a definition of pedophile? In the link the only use is in: 18 USC Sec. 2251 01/03/2007 Sec. 2251. Sexual exploitation of children I turn you to 10 USC Sec. 920
Why would the military separate those under 12, and those older than 12?
Why are you isistant on judges creating defintions of words?
Would you insist someon finds a legal ruling that states that Pepsi is indeed not Coke?
People are arrested for statutory rape for the same basic reason 15 year olds cannot enter into their own contracts. They are below the age of consent for that particular act.
You made a claim and you haven't found anything to back up the claim, the onus is on you [considering all other standard defintions of what pedophilia is] to show that pedophilia has some distorted standard defintion in the legal circles [slang doesn't count].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No, I haven't and I have EXPLICITLY said as much.
But this does not invalidate my argument in any legal sense. Within the legal system there are two ways to determine what the law is and what it actually means. The first, obviously, is the legislative process by which the laws are actually enacted. The second is through court precedent in the interpretations of those laws. Both are pertinent to the determination of what something means in a legal sense.
All of my premises have been substantiated using one of these two vehicles. If you believe that I have misrepresented any of the legal definitions or court rendered decisions upon which I have relied, please point them out and state why you believe this to be the case.
I have no idea why the legislature, not the military, would have chosen the age of 12 years as being significant. It does not appear to have anything to do with pedophilia, though. At least not based on the text of the statute.
It is worth noting that the distinction being drawn in the statute you reference does NOT prevent someone from being convicted of a charge of "Rape of a Child". People can certainly be convicted of this charge for victims aged all the way up to the age of majority. Read that again, all the way up to the age of majority.
This statute, as written, does NOT say that children over the age of 12 are not children under the law or even within the context of this statute. It merely establishes that additional constraints must be met with respect to children at or above the age of 12 in order to obtain a conviction for the charge of "Rape of a Child". You do understand that, correct?
I am not insisting on any such thing. I don't know where you came up with this, show me where I have.
What I am saying that existing court rulings related to prosecutions related to Child Pornography laws establish precedents, and that those existing precedents have identifiable implications for the meaning of the law, as currently written. This view of the judiciary is unremarkable in the sense that it does not rely on anything other than a normal interpretation of how prior court rulings should be viewed in terms of their implications.
This is correct. But rape and Child Pornography are two separate and distinct topics under the law. In the case of Rape the legislature has chosen to recognize an age of consent which is separate and distinct from the age of maturity.
The point you don't seem to understand is that being over the age of consent does NOT make one an adult in the eyes of the law as it applies to Child Pornography (or even rape as the statute you reference demonstrates) which is clearly and distinctly associated with pedophiles.
There are two separate and distinct concepts at play here: (1) the age at which someone can give consent for sexual acts, and (2) the age at which someone becomes an adult (i.e. stops being a child). These two ages, as defined in the laws of various states, DO NOT COINCIDE. They are TOTALLY UNRELATED and COMPETELY INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER.
Recognizing that some children are able to give consent for sexual contact does NOT mean that they are no longer children.
I have most certainly backed up my claim using court precedents as they apply to Child Pornography convictions which obvious are focused on Pedophiles. The fact that you don't like or don't understand that this is the case doesn't make it not so.
I have no idea why you are referencing slang here. Where have I relied upon slang? If I have not, why are you bringing it up?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Poppycock GR you're coming off like Kevin Smith's appeasement
This is where you started:
You're either trying to make a completely irrelevant point (tantamount to saying that pedophiles can say that "Biden is a gaffe machine", and those pedophiles are protected under the 1st Amendment for saying that) or your trying to make up a new definition of pedophile.
Pedophile is as much a sexual orientation as Reptilian Humanoids are a gender.
Pedophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia... are not sexual orientations.
Sexual Orientations are, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. ie [adult male w/adult female = hetero and if you really want to stretch it, 9 year old male crush on similar age female = hetero]
AGE effectively has nothing to do with "Sexual Orientation."
Hannity is arguing that "armored mobile artillery" is a type of "main battle tank"
He may seem reasonable to people that don't what they are talking about or try to bend over backwards to to back up his argument.
Just because Hannity has no...clue what he's talking about, doesn't mean he has a point.
Pedophiles are a type of Child predator, and acts that a pedophile want to do are limited in the same umbrella concept of protecting older minors.
If similar laws used to ban what people call "assault weapons" had assault rifles on the same list of machine guns, does not mean the assault rifles and machine guns are one in the same thing.
Pedophiles are a type of child predator.
Those that target older minors may be a type of child predator.
Pedophiles like prepubescent children, not "children" in the broader sense of the word. Statutory Rape laws and similar Child Pornography laws are designed to protect children, NOT just prepubescent children.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Shows how much you know ...
not according to the definition that Baldwin is relying up. Her definition does not recognize bisexuality.
Here is the actual text in the actual US Code
that Baldwin is referring to:
See, nothing whatsoever about bisexuality.
This is only true under the MEDICAL definition of the term. The MEDICAL definition of the term is not controlling in a COURT OF LAW . What is controlling in a COURT OF LAW is (a) the actual text of the statutes, and (b) previous court rulings on the subject. As things stand today neither (a) nor (b) are consistent with the MEDICAL definition of the term as I have ALREADY DEMONSTRATED.
Given this any discussion based on the MEDICAL definition are irrelevent on this thread which is discussing the de facto LEGAL definition as embodied in the actual text of the US Federal Code and any associated cout rulings.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're a pedantic...
The way they worded it, bisexuality is redundant.
Looky here, Hannity must be going crazy, respective states treat different so called pedophiles differently, even when they commit the exact same act.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
In other news, Baldwin is not the only D with honesty issues
...and this one
is a whopper 
.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Here, Nancy, let me wipe that egg off your face ...
From this
we find:
And from this
we have:
Oops, my bad. It seems I smeared it a bit. Sorry.
(P.S. Centinel, nice catch but please stop hijacking threads. Start a new thread for these things, please.)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I know, sorry. ;-)
nt
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Those silly liberals, yes I mean you.
Another objective find at
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I'd like to add a grey water recycling system to my house for
watering the lawn & plants. It gets hotter'n'hell out here in the valley & they're about to crack down real hard on water usage. This is our 3rd year of drought after all.
Anyone know any good websites for info? There was nothing in the local phone book. You think there's be a bunch in the bay area....Probably are, I can't seem to find 'em.
Check for British sites, too
Greywater systems like that are common in Britain.
The easiest way, of course, is to just reroute your sink (or a designated sink). You should be able to do that yourself, into a sunken barrel, perhaps, and use a syphon to discharge the water when needed. Maybe even into an above-grade secondary barrel which then would be gravity fed into your garden hose.
You'd be surprised at how much water is wasted in just one sink. Might be a start :-)
Yea, basically but with pvc pipe & electric pumps.
I've found books on the web where they say the book shows you various designs. Can't pay rent when your giving content out for free I guess.
No. We're redoing our bathrooms & now there's a 10' square hole where there used to be a floor. Re-routing the pipe would be so much easier to do now than later. But I'm not sure I have the time to learn how to do it right.
Mr. Flowers Bought a Bank
a slideshow
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/05/06/business/20090506EQUITY_inde...
Buying a small bank in Gainesville, Mo. Mr. Flowers hopes to buy up distressed banks and operate out of this little town, pop. 370. He had to pay cash for the bank, but the Federal Reserve will not let him operate an equity firm as a bank. Mr. Flowers who started Goldman Sach's is lobbying hard to change those rules, declaring that someday, 'Low life grave dancers like me, will make a fortune.".
The pictures are fun.
Mr. Flowers not so much.
Even scarier is that Carlye Group is competing with him and lobbying the government to turn change the laws so that these new vulture bank buyers, can buy distressed banks, used equity (why we got in trouble in the first place) to make a fortune. Mr. Flowers swears it won't threaten the Republic.
Mr. Flowers and the saga of how the vulture turns.
I'm only half stupid
Miss Beautiful Morals
The most beautiful morals beauty contest sponsored by Saudi Arabia.
Yes it's true. A beauty contest that looks at inner beauty and not outer beauty, in the context of respecting your parents.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30605691
A most interesting arrangement, not the least being that the competitors will be both Shiite and Sunni women, who have in the past been traditional enemies. That's progress.
I'm only half stupid
Ya, thanks for reminding us, we suck.
..or you suck, whatever.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
It's an interesting
story that I thought might spark some interesting conversation.
Your comment, not so interesting.
I'm only half stupid
What they said then about the CRA
What Dan says now.
What Dan said then.
Read the whole article. The revisionist history is startling. What a bunch of freaking hypocrits.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21190_Page2.html
I believe tomorrow legislation will be introduced to regulate these bad lending practices. Let's see if conservatives will support it now!
I'm only half stupid
Fun with Paintshop
This is really too good not to share. Do check out Mitt's; he's my fav ;-)
Cute, but can you imagine, someone obviously has
way too much time on their hands!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Hey, didn't they forget to colorize McCain?
He doesn't look any different?!?!
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How come I haven't seen any new baby pictures up?
C'mon now...keep us all up to date.
Why close GITMO anyway?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Dude, they're never gonna close Gitmo ...
until the last detainee dies of old age or is so infirm that they cannot threaten anyone.
Why? Because no other country is going to let us dump them off there and even Obama is not so stupid as to bring them here. There ain't a whole lotta options.
Did you hear? Obama's administration is starting to think that Military Tribunals may be the best way to deal with these guys. Gee, why didn't Bush think of that?
These next four years are gonna be hilarious because Obama's gonna be hangin' out in the wind tryin' to find some what to look different than Bush while having to support everything Bush did because it's the only reasonable answer.
Just sit back and watch the show? And don't forget to take pot shots at the appropriate times. :)
Meta: This post is a semi-serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4