Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7508 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-08-26 12:16:59 AM  
priorities.
 
2012-08-26 12:20:06 AM  
[yougonnagetraped.jpg]
 
2012-08-26 12:21:52 AM  
"To the agitators and anarchists who want only to bring a dark cloud to this event..."

I think Isaac's got the dark cloud part covered already.
 
2012-08-26 12:28:42 AM  
Now, now, noiw, subby, you have SUCH bad suspicions about the GOP's ulterior motives.

In reality, these are the people that the God fearing Police Forces are going to use to justify ketteling and then "dispersing" the "subversives", so that we won't have to make an example out of "Real Americans".

I'd hate to be stuck in Tampa, in any case.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:20 AM  
Sounds like Monday will be one big fun frolic in Tampa.
 
2012-08-26 12:40:15 AM  
the agitators and anarchists who want only to bring a dark cloud to this event

Racist.
 
2012-08-26 12:44:48 AM  

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Sounds like Monday will be one big fun frolic in Tampa.


One can only hope.
i28.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-26 12:46:27 AM  
Because Florida legitimately wants to help people.
 
2012-08-26 12:49:06 AM  
Or to free up space for all the Republicans caught soliciting prostitutes (male or otherwise).
 
2012-08-26 12:51:48 AM  
I really hope this is exaggeration or something taken out of context.
 
2012-08-26 12:52:41 AM  

kmmontandon: Or to free up space for all the Republicans caught soliciting prostitutes (male or otherwise).


Nah. They'd never see the inside of a jail cell.
 
2012-08-26 12:53:12 AM  
By Monday night, it will be hard to tell the visitors from the parolees anyway.

/they don't keep records of anything in Florida
 
2012-08-26 12:53:27 AM  
What could possibly go AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HE'S STABBING ME!!!!!
 
2012-08-26 12:59:08 AM  
FTFA: If only the police were directing their efforts toward the criminals inside of the convention rather than the protesters calling for justice outside...

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-08-26 01:06:51 AM  

SilentStrider: kmmontandon: Or to free up space for all the Republicans caught soliciting prostitutes (male or otherwise).

Nah. They'd never see the inside of a jail cell.


Too bad for them. Then the buttsex would be free!
 
2012-08-26 01:18:56 AM  
Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?
 
2012-08-26 01:23:56 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


the hurricane hits. a couple of high ranking GOP types stumble out into the storm, get lost and mixed up in the crowd with a bunch of protesters. the cops sweep 'em all up and put them all in the same jail cell. due to power outages and storm related chaos...identities are not verified for three weeks. the Republicans are left in general population, to experience the full extent of their preferred form of merciless justice.

I wonder how they handle it?
 
2012-08-26 01:25:25 AM  
How republican of them.

Will they at least give the protesters a Freedom Cage twenty blocks away in which to demonstrate?
 
2012-08-26 01:29:23 AM  

brianbankerus: How republican of them.

Will they at least give the protesters a Freedom Cage twenty blocks away in which to demonstrate?


I'm pretty sure the cops will suspend the bill of rights for the duration of the hurricane. Because um...danger and stuff.
 
2012-08-26 01:40:22 AM  
cdn04.cdn.thesuperficial.com

"People of Tampa! This is your liberation!"
 
2012-08-26 01:40:23 AM  

Weaver95: brianbankerus: How republican of them.

Will they at least give the protesters a Freedom Cage twenty blocks away in which to demonstrate?

I'm pretty sure the cops will suspend the bill of rights for the duration of the hurricane. Because um...danger and stuff.


Right, it's a state of emergency. Doesn't matter, nobody gives the protesters any screen time anyhow. They're too busy airing the uncut speech of Ann Romney.
 
2012-08-26 01:50:59 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


Probably not worse than usual. You're already a bad person.
 
2012-08-26 02:40:08 AM  
I just captured some video of the RNC's keynote speaker for this year, and posted it to youtube for you FARKers to enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9bPV0iN0nE
 
2012-08-26 03:24:31 AM  

Weaver95: I really hope this is exaggeration or something taken out of context.


The inmates held at one jail have been moved to other jails in the same county (there is more than one jail in Hillsborough county). No sentenced inmates have been released on bond, that is simply not legal. The article is wrong.

There have been no arrests related to the RNC in Hillsborough county, There have been two tangentially related in Pinellas county - you can see the RNC bookings at a special link on the jail's website.

The Hillsborough county jail website may also be queried as well here.

The jail has added more staff, and increased medical staff to more rapidly process persons arrested into and out of the jail. As most crimes will be very minor additional seats in the waiting room, as well as additional telephones have been added so those arrested need not go to a cell, but arrange their release in the waiting room to get them home as quickly as possible.

Another local news station noted that if they have the same number of arrests the person arrested could be processed into and out of the jail in just 20 minutes. All misdemeanors have scheduled bonds as do many felonies. In Pinellas there is a similar bond schedule, and they have streamlined their ROR procedures down to a few hours.

As an example of the efficiency of the jail before these upgrades were implement look at the processing of a Occupy Tampa protester who was arrested in January. She was booked at about 10:30PM and out just before 3AM, not too bad - 5 hours. These upgrades should improve that and get people back to what they want to be doing rather than sitting in jail. (she had 1 count dropped, and entered a deferred prosecution program for the second and successfully completed it without a conviction record.)

The public defender has all hands on deck to help those arrested immediately upon their entry into the jail. The Clerk of the Court is also moving staff temporarily to the jail and advisory and arraignments will be handled virtually around the clock.

A less hyperbolic article may be found at a local television station, BayNews9.

Remember, the jail does not arrest anyone, they simply process those arrested and their goal is to get those who can be released out as quickly as possible.
 
2012-08-26 03:27:16 AM  

SilentStrider: kmmontandon: Or to free up space for all the Republicans caught soliciting prostitutes (male or otherwise).

Nah. They'd never see the inside of a jail cell.


If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime as any Republican.
 
2012-08-26 03:29:16 AM  
On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.
 
2012-08-26 05:23:23 AM  
feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime as any Republican.

Well, and it's not a crime - so let's not pretend I'm saying that, I'm just curious how many M4M postings are going go pop up suddenly on the local Craigslist site when the convention gets into full swing.

Gawker did a story on the last one on how they suddenly had hundreds of those ads, and a sudden surge in people using certain apps designed to find a quick gay hook-up at your hotel.

/not that it would suprise me to find a bunch of closeted gay republicans.
 
2012-08-26 06:28:07 AM  
RELEASE BARBABAS!!
 
2012-08-26 06:33:24 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Sounds like Monday will be one big fun frolic in Tampa.

One can only hope.
[i28.tinypic.com image 350x450]


Lootie, my man! Where ya' been?
 
2012-08-26 06:35:07 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


About as bad as it makes me, I guess, as I feel the same...
 
2012-08-26 06:35:24 AM  
This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.
 
2012-08-26 06:38:23 AM  
Nah, it's to free up space for all those family values Real Americans trying to pay for some man on man action.
 
2012-08-26 06:45:12 AM  
I don't think people really listen to what you have to say when you protest

encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-08-26 06:46:12 AM  
But now they're free to vote democrat.

/I'm a lefty/libertarian
//Gobama!
 
2012-08-26 07:11:13 AM  
Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.
 
2012-08-26 07:15:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.


Oh yeah.. one more reason to stay clear of the area.
 
2012-08-26 07:16:51 AM  
If I went I would have a sign with

FREE PUSSY RIOT

on it.
 
2012-08-26 07:20:03 AM  
oh and for those keeping score...the police quashing dissent is an actual first amendment violation.
 
2012-08-26 07:22:18 AM  
Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.

Since we're not talking about the NYPD, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're probably better armed, and have better aim.

And, as the NYPD has proven, bystanders are fair game.
 
2012-08-26 07:23:45 AM  
bioproj.sabr.org
 
2012-08-26 07:25:19 AM  

BronyMedic: Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.

Since we're not talking about the NYPD, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're probably better armed, and have better aim.

And, as the NYPD has proven, bystanders are fair game.


it was a sarcastic joke. I was merely pointing out how stupid the law was.
 
2012-08-26 07:26:17 AM  
Cover charges will be used to keep protesters in custody while the RNC is functioning. Long processing time, individual movement with the system, and other legal tricks will ensure the troublemakers (besides the delegates) will be kept far away from the convention and out of media coverage. Months later, the courts will drop charges against most of the arrested- leaving the citizens to pay damages.

The are three forms of government- 1040 Long,1040 Short and 1040 EZ.
 
2012-08-26 07:26:36 AM  
Myth: People are going to be put in prison simply for calmly and rationally protesting the GOP!

Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later.
 
2012-08-26 07:27:03 AM  
This is how America will be if republicans win. They want to complete the Bush plan of stripping away your rights and turning the U.S. into a police state.
 
2012-08-26 07:29:16 AM  
This...is NOT satire? Oh jeez. *facepalm*
 
2012-08-26 07:29:51 AM  
You people. You scream that you want more government, and now that you are getting more government you're sobbing hysterically.
 
2012-08-26 07:29:55 AM  
what would be funny though is that if the protesters were outfitted with every legal piece of armor and weaponry available to private citizens courtesy of the NRA

could you imagine the cops reaction to thousands of people with AR15s,gas masks,body armor,gas grenades and such? Now that might get a discussion going.
 
2012-08-26 07:33:51 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


That makes you normal for a liberal.
 
2012-08-26 07:37:52 AM  

feckingmorons: Weaver95: I really hope this is exaggeration or something taken out of context.

The inmates held at one jail have been moved to other jails in the same county (there is more than one jail in Hillsborough county). No sentenced inmates have been released on bond, that is simply not legal. The article is wrong.

[snip]


Thank you for this.

/Web journalism, how does it work?
 
2012-08-26 07:38:26 AM  

DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.


If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.
 
2012-08-26 07:38:48 AM  
I honestly would like to know if other conventions resemble a fascist post-apocalyptic dystopian future as much as this one does. Citizen.
 
2012-08-26 07:39:14 AM  

shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.


the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal
 
2012-08-26 07:43:01 AM  

Yet another example of Right-Wing Authoritarians becoming worried about a supposed danger, and doing their very best to amplify the situation. That way, they get to prove their worries correct, usually by being the more aggressive gang and starting the the conflicts themselves.

...both northern and southern California still "braced for invasion." This was because various elements of the press had managed to convince each other that there were actually five hundred to a thousand Hell's Angels -- so when only two hundred showed up at Bass Lake both the news media and the police felt certain the others would strike somewhere else.

[...]

But it was the same old story: the police were expecting at least five hundred savages coming in for a rumble; roadblocks would detain them, but for how long? And what then? The idea that the Angels would ride two hundred miles for a party and then be turned back by a roadblock ten miles from their destination was obviously wishful thinking. There would surely be violence, a bloody clash on a major highway, with holiday traffic backed up for miles. The alternative was to let them pass, but that too was fraught with tragic possibilities. It was a certified conundrum, a rooty challenge to the legal and social machinery of Madera County.

[...]

The police, in their wisdom, had managed to pile up at least a hundred bikes at the roadblock -- where the restraining orders were ceremoniously handed out -- and then released them all at once. So instead of arriving in quiet knots, the outlaws crested the hill in a great body ... howling, hooting, waving bandanas and presenting the citizens with a really terrifying spectacle.

- HST, in "Hell's Angels"
 
2012-08-26 07:44:02 AM  

shotglasss: If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.


LOL. Holy shiat.
 
2012-08-26 07:46:40 AM  
GOP releasing over 2,000 criminals into the community.

/it will b e a fun time
 
2012-08-26 07:47:43 AM  

shotglasss: DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.

If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.


why the handle shotglasss? do you like to drink whiskey?
 
2012-08-26 07:50:49 AM  

Mugato: I honestly would like to know if other conventions resemble a fascist post-apocalyptic dystopian future as much as this one does. Citizen.


.
.
You must be new to these parts. To answer your question, yes. Heck, at the last Dem convention Obama had a reporter arrested for attempting to report on who was attending $50,000 per plate dinners with then future Dear Leader. For the past couple conventions, mainly Dem conventions, protesters have been allowed as long as they remained in confined areas away from the convention.
 
2012-08-26 07:54:42 AM  

randomjsa: Myth: People are going to be put in prison simply for calmly and rationally protesting the GOP!

Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later.


Myth: Protests turn into riots all on their own

Reality: Cops go off at the drop of a hat, rushing in with horse and tear gas at the slightest hint of trouble.

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."
 
2012-08-26 07:57:48 AM  

Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.

If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.

why the handle shotglasss? do you like to drink whiskey?


No, I prefer Mai Tais, but only when I'm in Hawai'i. Other than that, I don't drink alcohol at all. Collecting shotglasses has been a hobby for a long time. There's 3 Ss in it, because someone had the correct spelling already.
 
2012-08-26 08:00:20 AM  

Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal


Conservatives are too busy trying to pay for the government freebies liberals get to worry about committing crimes against liberals. Besides, there's enough liberals committing crimes on other liberals to keep us smiling about it. OWS FTW!
 
2012-08-26 08:05:18 AM  
randomjsa

"Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later."

I just spent a few minutes at the Occupy Tampa page on FB. They are not planning for a peaceful time.
 
2012-08-26 08:05:40 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


If it was the Democratic Nation Convention and the same thing happened, would you still feel the same?
 
2012-08-26 08:05:46 AM  
I thought we came to Fark to get away from bullshiat, sensationalized headlines such as this?
 
2012-08-26 08:07:57 AM  

shotglasss: DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.

If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.


Derr to the p.
 
2012-08-26 08:08:37 AM  

Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal


And get applause at an RNC debate.
 
2012-08-26 08:09:06 AM  
Kinda smells like bullshiat, to me. Anyone got any corroborating reports?
 
2012-08-26 08:10:16 AM  

enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.


Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.
 
2012-08-26 08:11:32 AM  

gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.


Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.
 
2012-08-26 08:12:53 AM  

cman: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

If it was the Democratic Nation Convention and the same thing happened, would you still feel the same?


Of course not, they'd just blame the TEA party people.
 
2012-08-26 08:14:50 AM  

6655321: Cover charges will be used to keep protesters in custody while the RNC is functioning. Long processing time, individual movement with the system, and other legal tricks will ensure the troublemakers (besides the delegates) will be kept far away from the convention and out of media coverage. Months later, the courts will drop charges against most of the arrested- leaving the citizens to pay damages.

The are three forms of government- 1040 Long,1040 Short and 1040 EZ.


What percentage of the cover charge goes to the band?
 
2012-08-26 08:15:01 AM  

ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

 
2012-08-26 08:16:22 AM  
Well, left wing hippie solcialists do seem to have a hard time controlling themselves when they protest. Just look at all the damage and mayhem all the Occupy idiots caused. Sounds like clearing out a little space for them is a good measure.
 
2012-08-26 08:18:27 AM  

All right, a crime spree!

 
2012-08-26 08:19:13 AM  

Hobodeluxe: BronyMedic: Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.

Since we're not talking about the NYPD, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're probably better armed, and have better aim.

And, as the NYPD has proven, bystanders are fair game.

it was a sarcastic joke. I was merely pointing out how stupid the law was.


Yes, self-defense laws are stupid.
 
2012-08-26 08:20:17 AM  

shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.


cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2012-08-26 08:22:43 AM  

Hobodeluxe: If I went I would have a sign with

FREE PUSSY RIOT

on it.


Did you forget a comma?

FREE PUSSY, RIOT
 
2012-08-26 08:23:49 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Now, now, noiw, subby, you have SUCH bad suspicions about the GOP's ulterior motives.

In reality, these are the people that the God fearing Police Forces are going to use to justify ketteling and then "dispersing" the "subversives", so that we won't have to make an example out of "Real Americans".

I'd hate to be stuck in Tampa, in any case.


Tampa is run by centrist Democrats. The chief of police, Jane Castor, is not known for being an authoritarian lardass.

I've got no problem with people protesting, but you just know that they're going to try to disrupt traffic or public services, and there's enough disruption already with the GOP in town.
 
2012-08-26 08:26:36 AM  
Free speech zones are not as fun as they are on TV...

weirdlywiredworld.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-26 08:28:15 AM  

shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.


[citation needed]
 
2012-08-26 08:29:53 AM  

Sudlow: randomjsa

"Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later."

I just spent a few minutes at the Occupy Tampa page on FB. They are not planning for a peaceful time.


i28.photobucket.com

Non-violent direct action? Oh, the horror! 

Better they should be starting wars under false pretenses, and destroying our economy while enriching themselves, by making shiatty loans and investments.
 
2012-08-26 08:30:04 AM  
This is an outrage because the only people protesting will be peaceful and not break any shiat..
 
2012-08-26 08:33:21 AM  

jpo2269: This is an outrage because the only people protesting will be peaceful and not break any shiat..


Yeah, we'll see.
 
2012-08-26 08:35:48 AM  

shotglasss: DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.

If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.


citationneeded.jpg
 
2012-08-26 08:36:03 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Myth: Protests turn into riots all on their own

Reality: Cops go off at the drop of a hat, rushing in with horse and tear gas at the slightest hint of trouble.


letmelaughhard.jpg

So basically your contention is that somehow peaceful and non-problematic protests/public gatherings go off without a hitch all the time. Examples include Tea Party events, events run by people like Al Sharpton or the NAACP, the events held by Glenn Beck or Stewart/Colbert, and a dozen others I could name but mysteriously and magically the police suddenly "provoke" problems at other events.

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.
 
2012-08-26 08:36:43 AM  

cc_rider: Sudlow: randomjsa

"Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later."

I just spent a few minutes at the Occupy Tampa page on FB. They are not planning for a peaceful time.

[i28.photobucket.com image 612x222]

Non-violent direct action? Oh, the horror! 

Better they should be starting wars under false pretenses, and destroying our economy while enriching themselves, by making shiatty loans and investments.


Since we're talking Republicans, I'm pretty sure that DODA protests would be more effective.
 
2012-08-26 08:37:32 AM  
Do Ben Masel proud, protestors.
 
2012-08-26 08:37:39 AM  
Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars
 
2012-08-26 08:37:52 AM  
Your Second Amendment rights are sacrosanct. First Amendment... eh, not so much.
 
2012-08-26 08:39:58 AM  

Altair: I thought we came to Fark to get away from bullshiat, sensationalized headlines such as this?


Tons of BS headlines.. how do you know this is one?
 
2012-08-26 08:40:24 AM  

randomjsa: Myth: People are going to be put in prison simply for calmly and rationally protesting the GOP!

Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later.


Nah, it is more fun to label republicans as evil, and perpetuate the toxic mood of politics, all the while claiming to espouse peace and tolerance.

Bullshiat of the highest order.
 
2012-08-26 08:41:45 AM  

GORDON: randomjsa: Myth: People are going to be put in prison simply for calmly and rationally protesting the GOP!

Reality: People are going to be put in jail for being disruptive and intentionally provoking incidents so they can whine about them later.

Nah, it is more fun to label republicans as evil, and perpetuate the toxic mood of politics, all the while claiming to espouse peace and tolerance.

Bullshiat of the highest order.


Leave Fox News out of this.
 
2012-08-26 08:44:15 AM  

truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars


.
.
Here ya go.
 
2012-08-26 08:45:36 AM  

truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars


.
.,
Here ya go Link
 
2012-08-26 08:47:39 AM  
Shotglass:

So your primary defining characteristic of a liberal is someone who identifies their opponent as enemy, characterizes them as morally inferior as a class, and spends their discourse on collective character attacks.

How very interesting.

/hint - This post is a mirror. Look in it.
 
2012-08-26 08:47:51 AM  

david_gaithersburg: truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars

.
.,
Here ya go Link


Wow... compelling... linking to fark. Aren't you precious. Anyone have an actual video of this happening, or is it just a hypothetical piece of crap the right likes to say might happen on the left, so vote republican?
 
2012-08-26 08:48:12 AM  

shotglasss: DrBenway: On the other hand, all the petty criminals they're releasing will be free to prey on the delegates, so they've got going for them. Which is nice.

If OWS people are there, they prey on each other. Rapes, killings, drugs, public pooping, and all the other stuff the left is known for will be on full display. They won't bother the delegates too much if they fear those people are armed.


Well done, was that copy directly written by Free Republic or did you use refrigerator magnets to synthesize that?
 
2012-08-26 08:48:27 AM  
something something REAL CRIMINALS ARE IN CONGRESS. Looks like we're taking the highway to the danger zone.
 
2012-08-26 08:52:30 AM  

Hobodeluxe: If I went I would have a sign with

FREE PUSSY RIOT

on it.


Make sure you stand next to the I SHAVED MY BALLS FOR THIS? guy.
 
2012-08-26 08:54:49 AM  

Altair: I thought we came to Fark to get away from bullshiat, sensationalized headlines such as this?


[Whut?.jpg]
 
2012-08-26 08:57:36 AM  
Did they let the prostitutes out?
 
2012-08-26 08:59:04 AM  

wambu: GOP releasing over 2,000 criminals into the community.

/it will b e a fun time



does this mean they'll be releasing themselves???
 
2012-08-26 09:00:41 AM  

GORDON: Nah, it is more fun to label republicans as evil, and perpetuate the toxic mood of politics, all the while claiming to espouse peace and tolerance.


I love when republicans cry about hyperbolic political rhetoric. They cry so much about it when it is directed at them because they know from 30 years of experience it works to move an agenda better than trying to take the high road, the route they encourage those against their backward and extremist views to take.
 
2012-08-26 09:01:06 AM  

Weaver95: the hurricane hits. a couple of high ranking GOP types stumble out into the storm, get lost and mixed up in the crowd with a bunch of protesters. the cops sweep 'em all up and put them all in the same jail cell. due to power outages and storm related chaos...identities are not verified for three weeks. the Republicans are left in general population, to experience the full extent of their preferred form of merciless justice.

I wonder how they handle it?


Prison biatches have to come from somewhere.
 
2012-08-26 09:02:33 AM  

Headso: GORDON: Nah, it is more fun to label republicans as evil, and perpetuate the toxic mood of politics, all the while claiming to espouse peace and tolerance.

I love when republicans cry about hyperbolic political rhetoric. They cry so much about it when it is directed at them because they know from 30 years of experience it works to move an agenda better than trying to take the high road, the route they encourage those against their backward and extremist views to take.


LABEL Republicans as evil? I think there should be a truth in advertising rule about that. They are evil.
 
2012-08-26 09:03:22 AM  

randomjsa: They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.


quit talking shiat about the WBC or god will send you to hell.
 
2012-08-26 09:04:10 AM  

Alphax: LABEL Republicans as evil? I think there should be a truth in advertising rule about that. They are evil.


Vegetables lack the mental capacity to be evil.
 
2012-08-26 09:08:02 AM  

jpo2269: This is an outrage because the only people protesting will be peaceful and not break any shiat..


Wouldn't surprise me if the ones who start the trouble are wearing normal clothes and police boots.
 
2012-08-26 09:09:34 AM  

randomjsa: While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.


www.dtvusaforum.com
Please. Do go on.........
 
2012-08-26 09:10:19 AM  
I wonder how long before the Repubs blame Obama for raining on their Convention?
 
2012-08-26 09:11:06 AM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-26 09:15:49 AM  
Maybe they are planning on running a male prostitute sting and figure they need enough room to hold the entire GOP convention.
 
2012-08-26 09:17:14 AM  

shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

Conservatives are too busy trying to pay for the government freebies liberals get to worry about committing crimes against liberals. Besides, there's enough liberals committing crimes on other liberals to keep us smiling about it. OWS FTW!


you're trying too hard
 
2012-08-26 09:18:03 AM  
29.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-26 09:20:25 AM  

randomjsa: the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response.


these statistics brought to you by randomjsa's colon
 
2012-08-26 09:21:49 AM  
Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.
 
2012-08-26 09:24:42 AM  
If they're freeing guys in jail for possession, I say good.
 
2012-08-26 09:26:32 AM  

theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.


which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?
 
2012-08-26 09:27:38 AM  

TV's Vinnie: randomjsa: While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.


www.dtvusaforum.com
Please. Do go on.........

i.crackedcdn.com
 
2012-08-26 09:31:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.

which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?


I wasn't really intending to get into a debate about jurisprudence. Just recognizing that we have tons of non-violent 'criminals' in jails all around the country and it is certainly people like this that have been released from this Fla. jail and not murderers, Mother rapers, Father stabbers, Father
rapers, and the like.
 
2012-08-26 09:36:43 AM  
What kind of prisoners are being released for this?
 
2012-08-26 09:37:26 AM  

theknuckler_33: Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.

which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?

I wasn't really intending to get into a debate about jurisprudence. Just recognizing that we have tons of non-violent 'criminals' in jails all around the country and it is certainly people like this that have been released from this Fla. jail and not murderers, Mother rapers, Father stabbers, Father
rapers, and the like.


florida.arrests.org
 
2012-08-26 09:38:46 AM  

WizardofToast: What kind of prisoners are being released for this?


See the post early on in this thread by feckingmorons before you get outraged.
 
2012-08-26 09:39:34 AM  
Nice, an out-of-the-blue OWS thread. It's so good to see tired memes being revitalized, it silences all doubt about complete and utter GOP desperation.
 
2012-08-26 09:44:40 AM  

enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]


Here you go.
 
2012-08-26 09:46:30 AM  

WizardofToast: What kind of prisoners are being released for this?


The only "criminals" who were released on bond, we those who posted bond, as per our legal system. All of the other inmates (not some) were moved to Falkenberg Rd facility. This was to make room for those people who choose to demonstrate in a disorderly fashion (ie; rocks, broken windows, fighting, etc.). There will be protestors, there always is, however, the move was made to have a central location to process those protestors whose only goal is to reek havoc on law abiding citizens.
 
2012-08-26 09:47:09 AM  

shotglasss: enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]

Here you go.


HAHAHAHAHAAAA..

This is a visual version of kissthisguy.com Now I KNOW you're not serious.
 
2012-08-26 09:48:46 AM  

theknuckler_33: Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.

which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?

I wasn't really intending to get into a debate about jurisprudence. Just recognizing that we have tons of non-violent 'criminals' in jails all around the country and it is certainly people like this that have been released from this Fla. jail and not murderers, Mother rapers, Father stabbers, Father
rapers, and the like.


no instead we are going to fill them with people exercising their first amendment rights.
 
2012-08-26 09:48:53 AM  

shotglasss: enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]

Here you go.


There are several layers of retarded here:

1) This is an interpretation of lip reading. Hick, please.
2) You are equating the destruction of the US flag, a protected act under the first amendment, as the same as denying someone the right to pursue happiness.
3) No seriously, flog yourself. Look at #2 and feel shame. Beat yourself into a pulp until you see the error of your ways.
 
2012-08-26 09:49:23 AM  
It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.
 
2012-08-26 09:52:00 AM  

smitty04: WizardofToast: What kind of prisoners are being released for this?

The only "criminals" who were released on bond, we those who posted bond, as per our legal system. All of the other inmates (not some) were moved to Falkenberg Rd facility. This was to make room for those people who choose to demonstrate in a disorderly fashion (ie; showing up, protesting outside of the free speech zone, assaulting the officer's arm as it pushes the protestor to the ground, having stringrocks, broken windows, fighting, etc.). There will be protestors, there always is, however, the move was made to have a central location to process those protestors whose only goal is to reek havoc on law abiding citizens.

 

FTFY
 
2012-08-26 09:56:30 AM  

cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.


But Republicans have what job creators crave.

thisdistractedglobe.com

It's got free market.
 
2012-08-26 09:56:33 AM  

cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.


Democratic Convention 1968 Chicago
latimesblogs.latimes.com
 
2012-08-26 09:58:39 AM  

smitty04: cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.

Democratic Convention 1968 Chicago
[latimesblogs.latimes.com image 490x390]


Are you implying those folks were trying to goad the government into a costly and ruinous war and advocating policies that increased income disparity in the country?
 
2012-08-26 09:58:39 AM  

smitty04: cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.

Democratic Convention 1968 Chicago
[latimesblogs.latimes.com image 490x390]


Yes, let's equate protesting the war with subjegating women's rights, gay rights, and the American economy.

Suck at this, you do.
 
2012-08-26 09:58:48 AM  
Please note that when you are watching the video next week of the start of the beat-down and you see a couple of plastic bottles flying in a high lazy arc through the air, with the caps off so half the water spills out, as they come wobbly falling onto the helmeted heads of the riot police, that you did not see someone throwing those bottles AT the cops. They were throwing it so the cops have an excuse to bust heads.

If the bottle is capped, filled and HURLED DIRECTLY at the cops then it was truly from the crowd.

You'll see.
 
2012-08-26 09:59:15 AM  
Speaking about criminals. What is the rules/laws on Red and Blue flashing lights on vehicles? I saw a video of Romney's campaign bus and they were on there flashing.
 
2012-08-26 10:00:46 AM  

Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.

which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?

I wasn't really intending to get into a debate about jurisprudence. Just recognizing that we have tons of non-violent 'criminals' in jails all around the country and it is certainly people like this that have been released from this Fla. jail and not murderers, Mother rapers, Father stabbers, Father
rapers, and the like.

no instead we are going to fill them with people exercising their first amendment rights.


I'm not going to get into an OWS reduct discussion.
 
2012-08-26 10:01:08 AM  

mrlewish: Speaking about criminals. What is the rules/laws on Red and Blue flashing lights on vehicles? I saw a video of Romney's campaign bus and they were on there flashing.


Oh, that's not a problem. You're forgetting that Mitt Romney is a Michigan State Trooper.
 
2012-08-26 10:03:40 AM  

Rich Cream: Please note that when you are watching the video next week of the start of the beat-down and you see a couple of plastic bottles flying in a high lazy arc through the air, with the caps off so half the water spills out, as they come wobbly falling onto the helmeted heads of the riot police, that you did not see someone throwing those bottles AT the cops. They were throwing it so the cops have an excuse to bust heads.

If the bottle is capped, filled and HURLED DIRECTLY at the cops then it was truly from the crowd.

You'll see.


yeah agent provocateurs are an age old ruse.
 
2012-08-26 10:04:26 AM  

theknuckler_33: Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Hobodeluxe: theknuckler_33: Jails and prisons are two very different things. The 'criminals' are probably all drug possessions and DUI and other minor non-violent crimes.

which begs the question "why were they in jail in the first place?"

if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?

I wasn't really intending to get into a debate about jurisprudence. Just recognizing that we have tons of non-violent 'criminals' in jails all around the country and it is certainly people like this that have been released from this Fla. jail and not murderers, Mother rapers, Father stabbers, Father
rapers, and the like.

no instead we are going to fill them with people exercising their first amendment rights.

I'm not going to get into an OWS reduct discussion.


that would be the wise thing to do.
 
2012-08-26 10:15:30 AM  

Rich Cream: Please note that when you are watching the video next week of the start of the beat-down and you see a couple of plastic bottles flying in a high lazy arc through the air, with the caps off so half the water spills out, as they come wobbly falling onto the helmeted heads of the riot police, that you did not see someone throwing those bottles AT the cops. They were throwing it so the cops have an excuse to bust heads.

If the bottle is capped, filled and HURLED DIRECTLY at the cops then it was truly from the crowd.

You'll see.


You can only hurl it directly if you are in the front.
 
2012-08-26 10:16:20 AM  
Because here in the USSA we need to clear the jails for POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Yay, Merikuh.
 
2012-08-26 10:16:41 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL


I'm glad you posted this. It means I don't have to read shotglass' multiple posts all but saying the same thing. We have to consolidate the message, and make sure it fits on a bumper sticker. I like the cut of your jib.
 
2012-08-26 10:18:50 AM  

SilentStrider: priorities.


For corporate government.

Lets face it folks, republican or democrat.... it doesn't matter who we vote or want in office.

The big $ corps get who they want.

 
2012-08-26 10:19:24 AM  

dickfreckle: Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

I'm glad you posted this. It means I don't have to read shotglass' multiple posts all but saying the same thing. We have to consolidate the message, and make sure it fits on a bumper sticker. I like the cut of your jib.


Heh, the only thing that'd keep it from selling is that not enough potential customers would know what "inherently" means.
 
2012-08-26 10:19:49 AM  

thamike: Make sure you stand next to the I SHAVED MY BALLS FOR THIS? guy.


That is, without doubt, the most awesome sign ever displayed in public, ever. I've worked it into my regular conversation to express general boredom or disappointment, and it never gets old.
 
2012-08-26 10:20:31 AM  
A toy watergun will get you landed in jail at the convention.

A real gun will not.
 
2012-08-26 10:21:04 AM  

liam76: Rich Cream: Please note that when you are watching the video next week of the start of the beat-down and you see a couple of plastic bottles flying in a high lazy arc through the air, with the caps off so half the water spills out, as they come wobbly falling onto the helmeted heads of the riot police, that you did not see someone throwing those bottles AT the cops. They were throwing it so the cops have an excuse to bust heads.

If the bottle is capped, filled and HURLED DIRECTLY at the cops then it was truly from the crowd.

You'll see.

You can only hurl it directly if you are in the front.


I would assume the aggressive ones would be up front but there could easily be trolls hanging in the back. Just saying if it's not thrown with hostility, it's not for real.
 
2012-08-26 10:21:42 AM  

dickfreckle: Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

I'm glad you posted this. It means I don't have to read shotglass' multiple posts all but saying the same thing. We have to consolidate the message, and make sure it fits on a bumper sticker. I like the cut of your jib.


I don't think all liberals are criminals. 99% of them, yes, but not all.

And there's 3 Ss in the name. Do try to keep up.
 
2012-08-26 10:22:04 AM  
Thanks for the gigantic metaphor of what Romney will do to the country if he's elected.
 
2012-08-26 10:22:49 AM  

truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars


Here's one

 
2012-08-26 10:23:03 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL


Yeah, like Thomas Jefferson.

/Can you even define what "liberal" means?
 
2012-08-26 10:24:36 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

Yeah, like Thomas Jefferson.

/Can you even define what "liberal" means?


Someone who can distinguish reality from fantasy, evidently.
 
2012-08-26 10:25:43 AM  

david_gaithersburg: You people. You scream that you want more government, and now that you are getting more government you're sobbing hysterically.


I want the government that isn't about spying, beating and shooting. Now authoritarians, on the other hand....
 
2012-08-26 10:25:50 AM  

vegasj: truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars

Here's one


How disrespectful! She should save that vitriol for booing a soldier who admits he's gay and wants the right to openly serve his country or marry the person he loves! Or a coma patient who doesn't have health insurance! Doesn't she know this is America???
 
2012-08-26 10:26:10 AM  

cman: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

If it was the Democratic Nation Convention and the same thing happened, would you still feel the same?


I probably wouldn't hope as much, but yeah.
 
2012-08-26 10:26:57 AM  

Rich Cream: liam76: Rich Cream: Please note that when you are watching the video next week of the start of the beat-down and you see a couple of plastic bottles flying in a high lazy arc through the air, with the caps off so half the water spills out, as they come wobbly falling onto the helmeted heads of the riot police, that you did not see someone throwing those bottles AT the cops. They were throwing it so the cops have an excuse to bust heads.

If the bottle is capped, filled and HURLED DIRECTLY at the cops then it was truly from the crowd.

You'll see.

You can only hurl it directly if you are in the front.

I would assume the aggressive ones would be up front but there could easily be trolls hanging in the back. Just saying if it's not thrown with hostility, it's not for real.


That would assume that the "aggressive" ones wanted a fair fight.

Also if they have shields they are generally faced forward, not up, so lobbing them is more likely to cause damage.

If objects are lobbed from a crowd at the police, the crowd will be treated as hostile, and rightly so.

/don't think police should charge right off the back, but that is a reason to order a crowd to disperse
 
2012-08-26 10:27:33 AM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-26 10:27:54 AM  
"I was cured alright, o mah bruthers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pFqQKaniK8
 
2012-08-26 10:29:15 AM  

shotglasss: Do try to keep up.


Son, the only one around here who needs to try to keep up is you. You're either an ignorant, paranoid manchild exposed to too much right wing media machine outrage, or you're a loser who enjoys antagonizing threads with utterly baseless claims, non-existent reasoning, and inflammatory bait.

Either way, you've got a long way to go in life. I pity you, almost.
 
2012-08-26 10:38:33 AM  
Now, at the Dems convention, they are preparing fot the demonstrations differently (as there will be a completely different crowd). The hospitals, and Medical suppliers are setting up extra oxygen supplies.
 
2012-08-26 10:39:40 AM  

lj1330: Now, at the Dems convention, they are preparing fot the demonstrations differently (as there will be a completely different crowd). The hospitals, and Medical suppliers are setting up extra oxygen supplies.


At least there will be plenty of Hoverround parking.
 
2012-08-26 10:39:50 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Your Second Amendment rights are sacrosanct. First Amendment... eh, not so much.


But see, that's the point... let loose a bunch of criminals so that the convention folk have a better chance of invoking their 2nd Amendment right.
 
2012-08-26 10:41:32 AM  
Ironic, isn't it?

If there ever was a legitimate revolution, it would most certainly not be televised.

Well, not in the US. BBC and Al-jazeera might be able to pick up our slack. Again.
 
2012-08-26 10:41:40 AM  
i38.photobucket.com


Standard Rules

Full Row = Drink
Any 5 boxes covered in a single post = Drink
All boxes covered = 2 Drinks

Heaven or Hell

All Boxes covered in a single post = 5 Drinks in 5 minutes



/Accepting suggestions for alternative rules.
//I'm not drunk...yet
 
2012-08-26 10:41:49 AM  

vegasj: truthseeker2083: Quite a few trolls this early on a Sunday morning... anyone want to link a video of the 'libs' booing a flag, or is that more crap being spewed?

/din't worry, I know the answer... this site has been taken by trolls and liars

Here's one


How dare you attack a politicians wife like that! She's just there to support her husband and you choose instead to attack and defame her! She's a god-fearing woman and showing what she said is an attack on her 1st Amendment rights!!1!

/did I do that right?
//assuming that's what she said
///much better than booing a member of the military that protects her right to say what she wants just because he likes the cock... or applauding and cheering the death of someone because they didn't have insurance
//// republicans are pathetic... for every 'lib' doing something un-American, there are 10 rightwingers that activly seek to tear apart what makes us a great country
// That was one lib, he specified libs cheering, you know more than one....
//I like slashes
 
2012-08-26 10:42:57 AM  
How much money would have been saved for the taxpayers of Tampa if the people had been released one week, one month or six months ago. Let's say $100/day for each of 1200 (some were transferred) for 180 days. $21,600,000 or so.
 
2012-08-26 10:43:15 AM  

Linux_Yes: wambu: GOP releasing over 2,000 criminals into the community.

/it will b e a fun time


does this mean they'll be releasing themselves???


No, that job will be handed to their aides.
 
2012-08-26 10:44:50 AM  
i630.photobucket.com

24.media.tumblr.com
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.
 
2012-08-26 10:46:23 AM  

GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?


You'd just seem like every other member of the group that dreams for tolerance yet has none of your own.

So take this advice for what it's worth: it's ok to disagree with someone, but it isn't ok to wish harm on someone.
 
2012-08-26 10:47:15 AM  

TheGogmagog: [i630.photobucket.com image 318x476]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.


It's a symbol from Cobra, the bad guys in GI Joe. Is that "free speech unit" decal real? Jesus Farking Orwell.
 
2012-08-26 10:48:50 AM  

TV's Vinnie: RELEASE BARBABAS!!


4.bp.blogspot.com

What?
 
2012-08-26 10:49:23 AM  
First thing you learn about the authority in Florida is that they're not shy about tossing you in a cell for a while.

And you're likely to get a nice reminder of your stay via the beating you get while 'resisting arrest'.
 
2012-08-26 10:49:50 AM  

liam76: That would assume that the "aggressive" ones wanted a fair fight.



The cops would never allow a fair fight. That's just absurd.
 
2012-08-26 10:49:53 AM  
I think letting a convicted criminal out of prison arbitrarily is the "pouring one out for one's homie" with respect to Mike Huckabee, Patron Saint of Rapists.
 
2012-08-26 10:50:31 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i48.tinypic.com image 504x604]


THIS NEEDS A BLANK PLEASE!!
 
2012-08-26 10:51:08 AM  

shotglasss: Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.


Dear gawd! You were serious? I flagged you as funny because I thought it was sarcasm.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-26 10:52:30 AM  
Maybe they are releasing criminals to boost attendance at the convention?
 
2012-08-26 10:54:52 AM  

shotglasss: And there's 3 Ss in the name. Do try to keep up.


Actually, your login seems to have a total of 4 "s"s in it... But, I wouldn't expect Republicans to be able to count or spell properly... After all, that would make you an elitist!
 
2012-08-26 10:56:04 AM  
There is a lot of difference between a bunch of career criminals and attendees of the GOP convention.

One is a group of people that you would not trust around your children, your wallet or your house.

The other is a bunch of career criminals.
 
2012-08-26 11:02:04 AM  
Silly protesters, the right of the people to peaceably assemble means you can own LEGOs.
 
2012-08-26 11:02:50 AM  

TheGogmagog: [i630.photobucket.com image 318x476]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.



I hope the bad Cobra photoshop is to distract from a more careful job done on "free speech unit".
 
2012-08-26 11:04:18 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

It made much more sense to me imagining that this guy was doing the reporting.
 
2012-08-26 11:08:06 AM  

Hobodeluxe: if they're not a threat to society then why lock them up and cost the taxpayer money when a fine would have been sufficient punishment?


Some can't or won't pay a fine? Sometimes a judge may think that few days in jail is a more fitting punishment than a fine that a well-off defendant can easily pay. Sometimes it takes people a few days to get their bond or fine money together.

There's a complicated mix of reasons. Community programs for non-violent offenders are sometimes just as expensive when administrative costs are taken into account, and what do you do with somebody who doesn't show up for his court-ordered program?
 
2012-08-26 11:08:46 AM  
It's a free country and everybody has a right to assemble and hold political activities. If we expect police to arrest anti-Ku Klux Klan protestors who would get out of hand at a Ku Klux Klan rally then we should expect the same police protection of a Republican convention, scaled up relative to the size of the problem.
 
2012-08-26 11:09:33 AM  
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.*

*only applies if it's against Liberals, any dissent against the GOP, Conservatives, or "the Church", it's criminal subversion and you will be prompted arrested.
 
2012-08-26 11:12:33 AM  
Political protesters are the lamest bunch of losers. Protesting a convention of people that share similar political beliefs among themselves simply because you disagree with their views? I guess voting just ain't enough (assuming more than 5% of protesters actually vote).
 
2012-08-26 11:13:04 AM  

mycatisposter: Political protesters are the lamest bunch of losers. Protesting a convention of people that share similar political beliefs among themselves simply because you disagree with their views? I guess voting just ain't enough (assuming more than 5% of protesters actually vote).


1/10
 
2012-08-26 11:15:09 AM  

gimmegimme: mycatisposter: Political protesters are the lamest bunch of losers. Protesting a convention of people that share similar political beliefs among themselves simply because you disagree with their views? I guess voting just ain't enough (assuming more than 5% of protesters actually vote).

1/10


You're generous. No misspellings, no gratuitous references to 'second amendment solutions', corrent punctuation and grammar throughout.

And worst of all, it's boring. His biggest jab is that protesters don't vote. I mean, wtf, son?
 
2012-08-26 11:15:40 AM  

BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime as any Republican.

Well, and it's not a crime - so let's not pretend I'm saying that, I'm just curious how many M4M postings are going go pop up suddenly on the local Craigslist site when the convention gets into full swing.

Gawker did a story on the last one on how they suddenly had hundreds of those ads, and a sudden surge in people using certain apps designed to find a quick gay hook-up at your hotel.

/not that it would suprise me to find a bunch of closeted gay republicans.


Maybe the surge in liberal gay protestors has all those M4M posters happily picking away at their keys.

See? More than one can pay at this game.
 
2012-08-26 11:19:08 AM  

clowncar on fire: BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime as any Republican.

Well, and it's not a crime - so let's not pretend I'm saying that, I'm just curious how many M4M postings are going go pop up suddenly on the local Craigslist site when the convention gets into full swing.

Gawker did a story on the last one on how they suddenly had hundreds of those ads, and a sudden surge in people using certain apps designed to find a quick gay hook-up at your hotel.

/not that it would suprise me to find a bunch of closeted gay republicans.

Maybe the surge in liberal gay protestors has all those M4M posters happily picking away at their keys.

See? More than one can pay at this game.


Liberal gays don't need to advertise on CL. They tend to congregate in locations that cater to them. Publicly.

Gay GOPers, on the other hand, hide their preferences and lie about it publicly. That's why they're constantly getting busted and caught on CL and bus stations and airport restrooms and rest stops and all the other spots that gays used to hang out before the majority started taking pride in their preferences.

In short: ONLY GAY REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON CRAIG'S LIST.
 
2012-08-26 11:19:44 AM  
Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).
 
2012-08-26 11:23:05 AM  

clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).


Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?
 
2012-08-26 11:23:17 AM  

Rich Cream: liam76: That would assume that the "aggressive" ones wanted a fair fight.

The cops would never allow a fair fight. That's just absurd.


Nor should they.

But the fact remains people lobbing stuff from the back, vice the front doesn't mean a crowd isn't hostile.
 
2012-08-26 11:25:01 AM  

ghare: A toy watergun will get you landed in jail at the convention.

A real gun will not.


You could fill a water gun with some noxious fluid so they baned them.

The state would not allow the city to ban firearms as the regulation of firearms is reserved to the state. The secret service can ban them in the areas they control, and they have.

If you spray someone with bleach or urine from a water gun you will get arrested. If you spray someone with bullets from a handgun you will most probably be killed as the police presence is quite high.

If you carry your handgun legally and don't shoot anyone how will anyone ever know?

I won't be carrying my gun for the part of the convention to which I am going. I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop... there will be plenty of cops so I don't need a gun.
 
2012-08-26 11:29:05 AM  

Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.


Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.
 
2012-08-26 11:31:02 AM  

PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.


I don't think OWS is gone, but I've heard nothing to suggest they'll be anywhere near Tampa. They seem to be after the puppet masters, not the puppets.
 
2012-08-26 11:32:12 AM  

Infernalist: clowncar on fire: BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime as any Republican.

Well, and it's not a crime - so let's not pretend I'm saying that, I'm just curious how many M4M postings are going go pop up suddenly on the local Craigslist site when the convention gets into full swing.

Gawker did a story on the last one on how they suddenly had hundreds of those ads, and a sudden surge in people using certain apps designed to find a quick gay hook-up at your hotel.

/not that it would suprise me to find a bunch of closeted gay republicans.

Maybe the surge in liberal gay protestors has all those M4M posters happily picking away at their keys.

See? More than one can pay at this game.

Liberal gays don't need to advertise on CL. They tend to congregate in locations that cater to them. Publicly.

Gay GOPers, on the other hand, hide their preferences and lie about it publicly. That's why they're constantly getting busted and caught on CL and bus stations and airport restrooms and rest stops and all the other spots that gays used to hang out before the majority started taking pride in their preferences.

In short: ONLY GAY REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON CRAIG'S LIST.


I've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too! 

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor child arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds you meet on the internet in Minnesota.

So, constantly means what in your book?
 
2012-08-26 11:32:50 AM  

Infernalist: clowncar on fire: BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime...

Liberal gays don't need to advertise on CL. They tend to congregate in locations that cater to them. Publicly.

Gay GOPers, on the other hand, hide their preferences and lie about it publicly. That's why they're constantly getting busted and caught on CL and bus stations and airport restrooms and rest stops and all the other spots that gays used to hang out before the majority started taking pride in their preferences.

In short: ONLY GAY REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON CRAIG'S LIST.


You seriously need to read "Freakonomics" more than anybody else I know at the moment.

I'm sure the few closeted gay republicans in attendance would have the resources to hook up outside of Craig's list. I'm postulating that the increase in support staff, protesters, gawkers, etc would probbly make this a target rich environment for gay Craig's List posters. I'm sure that there are some significant surges in a variety of other services provided such as baby sitting, room cleaning, home rentals, car rentals and catering as well.
 
2012-08-26 11:33:00 AM  
Yeah, unfortunately due to a little driving issue I can say they are getting prepared...and as FM describes above, they have 2 jails, about 2 miles apart, and if you are a guest for long they usually bus you over to the second one (apparently the first [orient road] is older, but has the booking facilities).

It's weird, there are banks and banks of new phones being added, and plywood dividers in the main jail hallway. Except for the phones, I'm not 100% sure what all the 'renovations' (looks like they were done by the lowest bidder's retarded cousin) are supposed to accomplish.

However, I will say this, they are generally in no hurry to get people out of there.Not as much as you might think.
 
2012-08-26 11:35:22 AM  

feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY
 
2012-08-26 11:35:46 AM  

PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.


OWS is still in Tampa, has been for months. They stay in a private park owned by a notorious strip club owner. He will be clearing them out as of September 15th however. Even the most vocal proponents of free speech get tired of their nonsense eventually.
 
2012-08-26 11:38:19 AM  

clowncar on fire: Infernalist: clowncar on fire: BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime...

Liberal gays don't need to advertise on CL. They tend to congregate in locations that cater to them. Publicly.

Gay GOPers, on the other hand, hide their preferences and lie about it publicly. That's why they're constantly getting busted and caught on CL and bus stations and airport restrooms and rest stops and all the other spots that gays used to hang out before the majority started taking pride in their preferences.

In short: ONLY GAY REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON CRAIG'S LIST.

You seriously need to read "Freakonomics" more than anybody else I know at the moment.

I'm sure the few closeted gay republicans in attendance would have the resources to hook up outside of Craig's list. I'm postulating that the increase in support staff, protesters, gawkers, etc would probbly make this a target rich environment for gay Craig's List posters. I'm sure that there are some significant surges in a variety of other services provided such as baby sitting, room cleaning, home rentals, car rentals and catering as well.


And I'm postulating that vast majority of gays advertising on CL are closeted men who are hiding their preferences from family, friends and coworkers. And I'm also postulating that vast majority of those who are in hiding are also GOPers who publicly hate on gays.
 
2012-08-26 11:38:48 AM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY


You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.
 
2012-08-26 11:40:27 AM  

Alphax: PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.

I don't think OWS is gone, but I've heard nothing to suggest they'll be anywhere near Tampa. They seem to be after the puppet masters, not the puppets.


Nah, they aren't gone, but they're irrelevant unless they can do something spectacular. I don't see it happening just yet.
 
2012-08-26 11:41:14 AM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.


What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?
 
2012-08-26 11:42:22 AM  

TheGogmagog: [i630.photobucket.com image 318x476]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.


Those are not from Tampa.
 
2012-08-26 11:44:02 AM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.

What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?


Bah, who cares what the law says? Just arrest him so we can crucify him already.
 
2012-08-26 11:45:31 AM  

pdkl95: - HST, in "Hell's Angels"


I still need to read that and dammit I wish he were alive for this election. I really want someone to accuse Romney of being an ibogaine addict.
 
2012-08-26 11:46:57 AM  

Infernalist: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.

What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

Bah, who cares what the law says? Just arrest him so we can crucify him already.


Republicans: The Law & Order party. And by Law & Order, I mean the TV show where they repeatedly cornhole the First Amendment to get clues because finding the red herring suspect who didn't do anything is more important than the Constitution.
 
2012-08-26 11:48:06 AM  
Tonight on Security Theater...
 
2012-08-26 11:48:39 AM  

gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?


No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?
 
2012-08-26 11:49:54 AM  

shotglasss: enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]

Here you go.


I was at church when you let loose this pile of poo. I see others have already made their comments so I'll just let those stand.
 
2012-08-26 11:55:24 AM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?


No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?
 
2012-08-26 11:58:24 AM  

Hobodeluxe: BronyMedic: Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.

Since we're not talking about the NYPD, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're probably better armed, and have better aim.

And, as the NYPD has proven, bystanders are fair game.

it was a sarcastic joke. I was merely pointing out how stupid the law was.


It's optional.

Feel free to lay down and let someone beat you.
 
2012-08-26 12:02:32 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?


Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?
 
2012-08-26 12:05:41 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?


I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:12 PM  

clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?


ournewsviews.com
 
2012-08-26 12:07:38 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?

Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?


My concern is that many police officers are less this:

appalachianleadershipacademy.files.wordpress.com

And more this:

i41.photobucket.com

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-26 12:11:38 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?

I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.


The reference comes from the book Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four by George Orwell. You should read it. You may even be inspired to start a chapter of the Junior Anti-Sex League.
 
2012-08-26 12:12:04 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]


Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?
 
2012-08-26 12:13:27 PM  
Pulling the Dubya-era jackboots out of the closet before the election? That's ... gutsy.
 
2012-08-26 12:14:34 PM  

clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?


Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?
 
2012-08-26 12:18:42 PM  

clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?


home.earthlink.net
 
2012-08-26 12:19:27 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?


It would have been a blow to Tubby McRentacop's fragile ego.
 
2012-08-26 12:19:38 PM  
just herd them all into those lame "free speech zones" that is prolly the most farked up thing
 
2012-08-26 12:20:53 PM  

gimmegimme: Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?


From civil rights to the labor movement the police have been used as the bludgeon to keep the people from longing for more of life's blessings, and since that time people like clowncar have been defending them.
 
2012-08-26 12:21:31 PM  

Graffito: shotglasss: Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

Dear gawd! You were serious? I flagged you as funny because I thought it was sarcasm.


You don't read "shotglasss" too much, do you?
 
2012-08-26 12:21:42 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?

Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?

My concern is that many police officers are less this:

[appalachianleadershipacademy.files.wordpress.com image 320x240]

And mor ...


You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.
 
2012-08-26 12:21:57 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]


Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.
 
2012-08-26 12:24:47 PM  

clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.


Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.
 
2012-08-26 12:27:50 PM  
Real nice. if one of those released commits a major crime there is gonna be an epic stink.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:23 PM  

gimmegimme: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]

Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.


Ohio State was months of tension finally culmonating in an act of brutality.

Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

What's messed up would be your inability to see the difference.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:41 PM  

clowncar on fire: I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos


www.minnpost.com
 
2012-08-26 12:33:00 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]

Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.

Ohio State was months of tension finally culmonating in an act of brutality.

Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

What's messed up would be your inability to see the difference.


You mean Kent State.

What evidence do you have the students were verbally abusive? Can you demonstrate that the police were right to ask the students to leave? Were they hurting anyone? Were they a danger to public safety? Have you even seen the many videos of the incident?

More importantly, why don't you care about the rights of the students peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
 
2012-08-26 12:38:00 PM  

clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.


The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.
 
2012-08-26 12:40:00 PM  

Sudlow: I just spent a few minutes at the Occupy Tampa page on FB. They are not planning for a peaceful time.


Duh.
The cops never keep it peaceful.
If you know you're going up an armed terrorist gang that's going to assault or kidnap you for exercising your rights, then you prepare accordingly.
Anyone planning for a peaceful time at a major protest, particularly the RNC of all things, is naive as hell if they think they won't be assaulted even while completely obeying the laws. Your pacifism won't save you.
 
2012-08-26 12:44:42 PM  

m2313: Your pacifism won't save you.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

― Mahatma Gandhi
 
2012-08-26 12:45:14 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.


I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.
 
2012-08-26 12:49:13 PM  

smitty04: Democratic Convention 1968 Chicago


Now ask the people of Iraq how much more civil the Republican Party is compared to US protesters. Then ask the people of Vietnam how civil the Democratic Party was to them.
 
2012-08-26 12:52:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.


I forgot to ask- Did that SWAT guy eventually shoot the guy with the sign, or did he eventually move along?

Pictures only capture a moment in time: they evoke emotion and are thought provoking capturing the moment that their author wants you to share- but not necessarily the real story behind them.

Sort of like sound bytes.
 
2012-08-26 12:53:44 PM  

clowncar on fire: However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind.


They are called agent provocateurs.

In that whole post you theorize that one can never know if one side is right or wrong so one should not take a side. You then take a side.
 
2012-08-26 12:54:18 PM  

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.

OWS is still in Tampa, has been for months. They stay in a private park owned by a notorious strip club owner. He will be clearing them out as of September 15th however. Even the most vocal proponents of free speech get tired of their nonsense eventually.


Fecking, I might acknowledge that OWS is no longer relevant, but they had a damn good point--our current economy is not sustainable. That is by no means nonsensical, and I don't particularly care who owns the land they occupy, even if you try to use big-kid words like 'notorious'.

/And, what, he's infamous for owning strip clubs? I live in NV. That entire concept is laughable. You might as well call someone infamous for owning a strip mall.
 
2012-08-26 12:54:30 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.

I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.


So it makes sense to release known criminals to make room for perceived ones?
 
2012-08-26 01:01:06 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.


Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.
 
2012-08-26 01:01:59 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.

I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.


When did I say that "every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting [my] definition of abuse?"

If you were in Birmingham in the 1960s, would you be holding the fire hose?
 
2012-08-26 01:05:34 PM  

clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.

Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.


Jesus Christ. If only there were some way to look up information.

You don't seem like the kind of guy who loves freedom enough to defend it at all.  Why do you bother living in America at all?
 
2012-08-26 01:06:56 PM  

clowncar on fire: Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.


You are a tool, you ask questions that you could easily answer yourself and your statement is full of logical holes.

One wonders what your take on the Boston Massacare would have been.
 
2012-08-26 01:07:23 PM  

shotglasss: dickfreckle: Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

I'm glad you posted this. It means I don't have to read shotglass' multiple posts all but saying the same thing. We have to consolidate the message, and make sure it fits on a bumper sticker. I like the cut of your jib.

I don't think all liberals are criminals. 99% of them, yes, but not all.

And there's 3 Ss in the name. Do try to keep up.


count again
 
2012-08-26 01:17:01 PM  
smitty04:

Is that meant to be ironic? Tampa's a shiathole...
 
2012-08-26 01:17:13 PM  

A Terrible Human: pdkl95: - HST, in "Hell's Angels"

I still need to read that and dammit I wish he were alive for this election. I really want someone to accuse Romney of being an ibogaine addict.


I never reported that Muskie was an Ibogaine addict. I reported that there was a rumor going around that he was, which was true. I started the rumor.

/Paraphrasing
 
2012-08-26 01:17:19 PM  

Magruda: History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down.


thecloud.crimethinc.com
 
2012-08-26 01:18:49 PM  

Fart_Machine: So it makes sense to release known criminals to make room for perceived ones?



CHARGE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE/POSSESSION BY A MINOR
BOND: 500 
CHARGE: BATTERY/POLICE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER/INTAKE OFFICER
BOND: 5000

She still must pay the bond.
 
2012-08-26 01:19:10 PM  
I would like to think that it's very telling when a political organization fears protestors more than convicted criminals.
 
2012-08-26 01:24:09 PM  

m2313: Magruda: History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down.

[thecloud.crimethinc.com image 800x505]


Is that from the Onion?
 
2012-08-26 01:24:16 PM  
"Agitators and Anarchists." Sounds like cop foreplay before an orgy of violence to me.

Also, that's a real interesting term for a bunch of liberals holding signs, which is mostly what your'e going to see.
 
2012-08-26 01:26:49 PM  

leonel: I would like to think that it's very telling when a political organization fears protestors more than convicted criminals.


Do you have any evidence that they're releasing convicted criminals? Most of the inmates at Orient Road are awaiting trial.
 
2012-08-26 01:27:19 PM  

Magruda: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

― Mahatma Gandhi


Ghandi wasn't the only one to be in the that movement, he was right next to and assisted by people much more violent, also the situations are completely different.
Gandhian strategies have not historically worked in the US; in fact, they haven't really worked on a mass scale since the civil rights movement. This is because the US media is simply constitutionally incapable of reporting acts of police repression as "violence." (One reason the civil rights movement was an exception is so many Americans at the time didn't view the Deep South as part of the same country.) Many of the young men and women who formed the famous Black Bloc in Seattle were in fact eco-activists who had been involved in tree-sits and forest defense lock-downs that operated on purely Gandhian principles-only to find that in the US of the 1990s, non-violent protesters could be brutalized, tortured (have pepper spray directly rubbed in their eyes), or even killed, without serious objection from the national media. So they turned to other tactics.
Nonviolence in terms of complete pacifism is a tactical thing for the cameras to counter the propaganda on the media. But otherwise it's just silly moralism and akin to thinking God will save you cause you did everything right. Not saying preemptive violence is justified (although I'm sure they're hiring riot police if you're into that) , but if it's self-defense against people assaulting you with tear gas, pepper spray, beanbag shotguns, beatings, batons, well go for it.
 
2012-08-26 01:28:35 PM  

clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.


i860.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-26 01:29:39 PM  

smitty04: Fart_Machine: So it makes sense to release known criminals to make room for perceived ones?


CHARGE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE/POSSESSION BY A MINOR
BOND: 500 
CHARGE: BATTERY/POLICE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER/INTAKE OFFICER
BOND: 5000

She still must pay the bond.


Citing a "stand your ground law" against a LEO?

Priceless.
 
2012-08-26 01:32:09 PM  

m2313: Gandhian strategies have not historically worked in the US; in fact, they haven't really worked on a mass scale since the civil rights movement.


I remember the XL pipeline being shut down last year. I also remember OWS changing the national debate to one of inequality. Depends on what you think of as "working" and i guess the media you adhere too.
 
2012-08-26 01:35:44 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]


Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

0.tqn.com

blog.reidreport.com

restoretheconstitution.files.wordpress.com

cdn.obrag.org

middleofthefreakinroad.files.wordpress.com

latftp.files.wordpress.com 

joshtom.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-26 01:52:03 PM  
While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.

Do they like pay you to spout that shiat?
 
2012-08-26 01:54:22 PM  

shotglasss: enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]

Here you go.


Except she's saying "I wonder, did they fly that flag [over the Capitol]?"
 
2012-08-26 01:57:23 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]


That was in the liberal utopia of California. Florida is not California.
 
2012-08-26 02:02:07 PM  

feckingmorons: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

That was in the liberal utopia of California. Florida is not California.


I live in Tampa so i know, it's worse.
 
2012-08-26 02:03:25 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?

I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.

The reference comes from the book Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four by George Orwell. You should read it. You may even be inspired to start a chapter of the Junior Anti-Sex League.


You seem to think perversions involving children are OK. How does your family and how do your neighbors feel about your views on child sex?

Is this something you enjoy personally?
 
2012-08-26 02:05:03 PM  

Magruda: feckingmorons: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

That was in the liberal utopia of California. Florida is not California.

I live in Tampa so i know, it's worse.


Really, what is worse? Do you know Chief Castor? Have you worked for Tampa Police Department? Are you with the HSCO?

How is it worse? Tampa, and Hillsborough county have hard working professional police officers and deputies. They have never used chemical agents on people staging a sit in.
 
2012-08-26 02:08:59 PM  

PsiChick: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.

OWS is still in Tampa, has been for months. They stay in a private park owned by a notorious strip club owner. He will be clearing them out as of September 15th however. Even the most vocal proponents of free speech get tired of their nonsense eventually.

Fecking, I might acknowledge that OWS is no longer relevant, but they had a damn good point--our current economy is not sustainable. That is by no means nonsensical, and I don't particularly care who owns the land they occupy, even if you try to use big-kid words like 'notorious'.

/And, what, he's infamous for owning strip clubs? I live in NV. That entire concept is laughable. You might as well call someone infamous for owning a strip mall.


He also runs for office periodically, gets arrested periodically (at last count he says more than 150 times) and is a stuanch advocate for the First Amendment. The criminal behavior is what makes him infamous.
 
2012-08-26 02:11:01 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?

I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.

The reference comes from the book Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four by George Orwell. You should read it. You may even be inspired to start a chapter of the Junior Anti-Sex League.

You seem to think perversions involving children are OK. How does your family and how do your neighbors feel about your views on child sex?

Is this something you enjoy personally?


You seem to think five-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds are the same.

Is the ad hominem something you enjoy personally?
 
2012-08-26 02:13:44 PM  

Fart_Machine: So it makes sense to release known criminals to make room for perceived ones?


One is not a criminal until conviction. The people released on bond or ROR were not convicted of the crimes with which they were charged and for which they were jailed.

No convicted criminals were released. The article is purposefully misleading.

Is it not wise to prepare to expedite arrestee's processing through jail so they can be out as quickly as possible. The jail didn't arrest them, they simply have to process them, apply the scheduled bond and if necessary hold a bond hearing or advisory hearing - all process improvements that have been set up to help defendants so they don't have to sit in jail.

The trials for those accused most probably will not start until 2013, would you want to wait in jail that long, or would you like to be out in a few hours?
 
2012-08-26 02:19:28 PM  
To put the matter in perspective the Charlotte - Mecklenburg County jail will be adding staff, taking magistrates away from their regular duties to conduct first appearance hearings, and canceling leave for police and court personnel in order to properly process all those arrested during the DNC.

Preparation is key to operational efficiency that protects the rights of those arrested and avoids unnecessary detention. Tampa and Charlotte are doing the right things to keep people out of jail, and yet for the small minded it is some grand conspiracy.
 
2012-08-26 02:21:08 PM  

feckingmorons: PsiChick: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Happy Hours:

/And, what, he's infamous for owning strip clubs? I live in NV. That entire concept is laughable. You might as well call someone infamous for owning a strip mall.

He also runs for office periodically, gets arrested periodically (at last count he says more than 150 times) and is a stuanch advocate for the First Amendment. The criminal behavior is what makes him infamous.


Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.

/Hint: I don't give a rat's ass what the owner of the park OWS is camped in is like when you're talking about OWS.
//Also: That's not 'infamous'. That's just 'your average weirdo'.
 
2012-08-26 02:23:14 PM  

gimmegimme: You seem to think five-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds are the same.


They're both children.

How would you feel if your son or daughter who wasn't old enough to vote or buy a pack of smokes was solicited online by a pervert for an illicit assignation in a public toilet? Be they five or 17, I would still be outraged that scum like the Democratic representative from Minnesota was trolling for oral sex from children.

Minnesota has some strange laws that allow 56 year old men to have sex with seventeen year old boys in public. With legislators like Kerry Gauthier making the laws it is no surprise.
 
2012-08-26 02:27:18 PM  

PsiChick: Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.


I'm quite comfortable with my use of language, thanks.

If you don't like it talk to the makers of the movie Strip Club King, they called him infamous long before I did.

Loaded language is simply things you don't like. Redner while admirably an advocate of the First Amendment is a scumbag who exploits women for his personal gain.

OWS are simply social misfits who can't hold a job and expect their every need to be catered to by others at no cost or burden to them. I hold them in the greatest contempt. They are also an ineffective political movement.
 
2012-08-26 02:31:01 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: You seem to think five-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds are the same.

They're both children.

How would you feel if your son or daughter who wasn't old enough to vote or buy a pack of smokes was solicited online by a pervert for an illicit assignation in a public toilet? Be they five or 17, I would still be outraged that scum like the Democratic representative from Minnesota was trolling for oral sex from children.

Minnesota has some strange laws that allow 56 year old men to have sex with seventeen year old boys in public. With legislators like Kerry Gauthier making the laws it is no surprise.


You seem to think that it's unusual for seventeen-year-olds to have sex with people who are older.

Check out this documentary about the evils of pedophilia: 

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-26 02:31:27 PM  

gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:



They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.
 
2012-08-26 02:36:29 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.


How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?
 
2012-08-26 02:37:50 PM  
Are similar protests, civil disobedience, riots, and rampant criminality anticipated at the DNC convention in cHARLOTte?

Or are republicans the "party of peace"?
 
2012-08-26 02:41:11 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: You seem to think five-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds are the same.

They're both children.

How would you feel if your son or daughter who wasn't old enough to vote or buy a pack of smokes was solicited online by a pervert for an illicit assignation in a public toilet? Be they five or 17, I would still be outraged that scum like the Democratic representative from Minnesota was trolling for oral sex from children.

Minnesota has some strange laws that allow 56 year old men to have sex with seventeen year old boys in public. With legislators like Kerry Gauthier making the laws it is no surprise.

You seem to think that it's unusual for seventeen-year-olds to have sex with people who are older.

Check out this documentary about the evils of pedophilia: 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x293]


Many states have laws that while not condoning sex between children, or children and adults not much older than them (AKA the five year rule). These are reasonable accommodations in the law based upon today's social mores.

This pervert is more than three times the age of the child he solicited online and met at a public toilet for sex. That is simply disgusiting, legal, but disgusting. He is the cover photo for NABMLA magazine, luring a child for sex via the Internet.

If you want to support that sort of thing go right ahead, but don't be surprised when I think you're sick.
 
2012-08-26 02:41:47 PM  

Amos Quito: Are similar protests, civil disobedience, riots, and rampant criminality anticipated at the DNC convention in cHARLOTte?

Or are republicans the "party of peace"?


Yes, see my above post about similar measures being taken in preparation for the DNC.
 
2012-08-26 02:44:28 PM  

feckingmorons: Amos Quito: Are similar protests, civil disobedience, riots, and rampant criminality anticipated at the DNC convention in cHARLOTte?

Or are republicans the "party of peace"?

Yes, see my above post about similar measures being taken in preparation for the DNC.



Looks like people are getting fed up all around.

I see this as progress - in a Jeffersonian sort of way.
 
2012-08-26 02:50:50 PM  
Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.
 
2012-08-26 02:52:52 PM  

machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.


Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?
 
2012-08-26 02:54:21 PM  

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?


I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.
 
2012-08-26 02:57:32 PM  

feckingmorons: I've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor child arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds you meet on the internet in Minnesota.

So, constantly means what in your book?


Over the age of consent, yet still considered a minor. So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it. You're old enough to vote, die for the country, and drive a car at 18, but you're still a child until 21 when it comes to smoking and drinking.

Anyone else think that this is a very convoluted and nonsensical web of contradictions?
 
2012-08-26 02:57:40 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: You seem to think five-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds are the same.

They're both children.

How would you feel if your son or daughter who wasn't old enough to vote or buy a pack of smokes was solicited online by a pervert for an illicit assignation in a public toilet? Be they five or 17, I would still be outraged that scum like the Democratic representative from Minnesota was trolling for oral sex from children.

Minnesota has some strange laws that allow 56 year old men to have sex with seventeen year old boys in public. With legislators like Kerry Gauthier making the laws it is no surprise.

You seem to think that it's unusual for seventeen-year-olds to have sex with people who are older.

Check out this documentary about the evils of pedophilia: 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x293]

Many states have laws that while not condoning sex between children, or children and adults not much older than them (AKA the five year rule). These are reasonable accommodations in the law based upon today's social mores.

This pervert is more than three times the age of the child he solicited online and met at a public toilet for sex. That is simply disgusiting, legal, but disgusting. He is the cover photo for NABMLA magazine, luring a child for sex via the Internet.

If you want to support that sort of thing go right ahead, but don't be surprised when I think you're sick.


You seem to want the law to adhere to your personal sense of morality. Sorry, but these two things are not the same, either legally or morally:

4.bp.blogspot.com

static.tvguide.com 

We agree that the
 
2012-08-26 02:59:02 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.


ZOMG! I don't want to have to walk 50 extra feet because other people are exercising their First Amendment rights.

What kind of American are you?
 
2012-08-26 03:00:19 PM  

machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.


It is. However some other people asked to use it first - so first come first served. Protesters have reserved spots for themselves as well, there was an application process -again first come first served several months ago. My co-worker's church group got a nice close public lot.
 
2012-08-26 03:05:34 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.


The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.
 
2012-08-26 03:08:35 PM  

gimmegimme: We agree that the


We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.
 
2012-08-26 03:11:45 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.


Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?
 
2012-08-26 03:13:19 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: I've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor child arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds you meet on the internet in Minnesota.

So, constantly means what in your book?

Over the age of consent, yet still considered a minor. So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it. You're old enough to vote, die for the country, and drive a car at 18, but you're still a child until 21 when it comes to smoking and drinking.

Anyone else think that this is a very convoluted and nonsensical web of contradictions?


'Tis.

If someone is old enough to vote, join the military, drive a car, own a car, play the lottery, buy quality reading material at their local newsstand and smoke tobacco, why shouldn't they be allowed to drink?

An easy way to lower the number of college kids who die from binge drinking would be to lower the drinking age. If they didn't have to worry about getting arrested for drinking booze or even having a bottle in their possession, they're less likely to drink more than they should in one sitting just for the sake of thumbing their nose at the law; likewise, they're less likely to down a fifth of 151 in one go on their 21st birthday while surrounded by a bunch of college-age drunks if they can legally have a beer or two on their 18th birthday while surrounded by family.
 
2012-08-26 03:17:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.


They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.
 
2012-08-26 03:18:46 PM  

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?


Interesting thing about locking your arms together is that you now become a co-conspirator should anyone in your chain resist arrest.
 
2012-08-26 03:23:58 PM  
Insane.

However, to be fair, the full police blurb is here and has important distinctions in it:

Tactically, we are ready. Security plans for the venue and the perimeters are set. Boundaries, protests zones and parade routes are established for the thousands expected in downtown Tampa. This is a special time for local civic pride as Tampa Bay gets ready to shine. To the agitators and anarchists who want only to bring a dark cloud to this event, let me be clear: criminal activity and civil disturbances will not be tolerated and enforcement actions will be swift.
 

One expects arrests at such things as people will, inevitably, break the law at such mass gatherings. So intentionally, some not.

But letting go of criminals to make way for more criminals (who will probably mostly be misdemeanor offenses)? Somehow I don't think the systems working as intended.
 
2012-08-26 03:26:07 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.


I love how people think that chidren and teenagers are completely naive, stupid, and helpless until they reach a magic number and suddenly magically become filled with wisdom, knowledge, and responsibility (for most things, they're still stupid baby children for alcohol and smoking until another magic number). You and your ilk are so concerned about the plights of near-adults that you can't see them as anything but frightened six-year-olds who need constant protection.

Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.
 
2012-08-26 03:28:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.


If we are referring to the protestors sitting abreast the walkway- 1) they should have kept moving. I know it takes a little work to keep pumping those legs, but at least you're not intentionally blocking a route, no matter how easy you believe it is to just go arround you 2) they are seated abreast for maximum inconvenience so there is intent to obstruct a walkway. Otherwise, wouln't have been more fun just to sit in a circle and having staring contests when things got boring. They also had the option of sitting side by side along the direction of the path rather than perpendicular to it. Again indicates conspiracy to obstruct 3) they had the option to stand up and move along rather than get paper sprayed 4) most importantly- now they famous!
 
2012-08-26 03:32:00 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Insane.

However, to be fair, the full police blurb is here and has important distinctions in it:

Tactically, we are ready. Security plans for the venue and the perimeters are set. Boundaries, protests zones and parade routes are established for the thousands expected in downtown Tampa. This is a special time for local civic pride as Tampa Bay gets ready to shine. To the agitators and anarchists who want only to bring a dark cloud to this event, let me be clear: criminal activity and civil disturbances will not be tolerated and enforcement actions will be swift. 

One expects arrests at such things as people will, inevitably, break the law at such mass gatherings. Some intentionally, some not.

But letting go of criminals to make way for more criminals (who will probably mostly be misdemeanor offenses)? Somehow I don't think the systems working as intended.


Fixed that for...you know...that whole making sense thing...
 
2012-08-26 03:34:31 PM  

CodeMonkey4Life: TheGogmagog: [i630.photobucket.com image 318x476]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.


I hope the bad Cobra photoshop is to distract from a more careful job done on "free speech unit".


Since the internet knows all, here is the original, it is from Oakland PD, known for a particularly brutal relationship with the local populace (lotta riots, lotta crackdowns you can "chicken or egg" beyond the civil rights days for who started it but the cops are keeping it going).

Apparently the REAL logo is Blackwater, go figure.
 
2012-08-26 03:35:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.

If we are referring to the protestors sitting abreast the walkway- 1) they should have kept moving. I know it takes a little work to keep pumping those legs, but at least you're not intentionally blocking a route, no matter how easy you believe it is to just go arround you 2) they are seated abreast for maximum inconvenience so there is intent to obstruct a walkway. Otherwise, wouln't have been more fun just to sit in a circle and having staring contests when things got boring. They also had the option of sitting side by side along the direction of the path rather than perpendicular to it. Again indicates conspiracy to obstruct 3) they had the option to stand up an ...


The cops easily stepped over them several times before they were sprayed. Surely they were such an impassable obstacle.

The point of a protest is civil disobedience. They were being peaceful with their protest, and were attacked for it. I also doubt any of them wanted to be "famous", but people like you always feel the need to ascribe that to anyone who ends up in the news for any reason.
 
2012-08-26 03:37:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.

I love how people think that chidren and teenagers are completely naive, stupid, and helpless until they reach a magic number and suddenly magically become filled with wisdom, knowledge, and responsibility (for most things, they're still stupid baby children for alcohol and smoking until another magic number). You and your ilk are so concerned about the plights of near-adults that you can't see them as anything but frightened six-year-olds who need constant protection.

Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.


I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.
 
2012-08-26 03:42:50 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?


My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?
 
2012-08-26 03:44:04 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.


Please tell me how you rationalize a 56 year old man arranging a meeting with a 17 year old child for sex at a public toilet.

The man is a child molester.
 
2012-08-26 03:45:36 PM  

TV's Vinnie: randomjsa: While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.

[www.dtvusaforum.com image 300x300]
Please. Do go on.........


Is randomjsa going off on his Tienanmen Square rant again?
 
2012-08-26 03:45:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.

If we are referring to the protestors sitting abreast the walkway- 1) they should have kept moving. I know it takes a little work to keep pumping those legs, but at least you're not intentionally blocking a route, no matter how easy you believe it is to just go arround you 2) they are seated abreast for maximum inconvenience so there is intent to obstruct a walkway. Otherwise, wouln't have been more fun just to sit in a circle and having staring contests when things got boring. They also had the option of sitting side by side along the direction of the path rather than perpendicular to it. Again indicates conspiracy to obstruct 3) they had the opt ...


I've got a couple of teens. it becomes blantantly obvious when they have a real cause and when they've degenerated into just making a pain in the ass of themselves. Until you live under the same roof with teens (other than as room mates), you probably wouldn't know this.

The difference is my kids are smart enough to go sulk elsewhere when they know they've crossed that line.

/never hit them
//seldom have to raise my voice with them
///have not even considered the pepper spray option after they turned 5
 
2012-08-26 03:45:58 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?


It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?
 
2012-08-26 03:47:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The point of a protest is civil disobedience.


No, the point of a protest is the point they are trying to make. Civil disobedience is a method to make a point, but it is never the point itself.

It is possible to make a point without being difficult. Look at the Tea Party folks pictured above, they are carrying placards and making a point with which many may not agree, but we can respect they way the peacefully make their point.

Contrast that with the OWS, who may indeed have a valid point - assuming we could figure out what it is- but no one respects them because they dilute their message with their lawbreaking.
 
2012-08-26 03:48:42 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?


How can the victim of a sex crime be charged?
 
2012-08-26 03:49:08 PM  

feckingmorons: Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?


I agree. Our tax dollars pay for that public toilet. You want to bugger a child, you better do it at the Red Roof Inn.
 
2012-08-26 03:49:37 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.

I love how people think that chidren and teenagers are completely naive, stupid, and helpless until they reach a magic number and suddenly magically become filled with wisdom, knowledge, and responsibility (for most things, they're still stupid baby children for alcohol and smoking until another magic number). You and your ilk are so concerned about the plights of near-adults that you can't see them as anything but frightened six-year-olds who need constant protection.

Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.


Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.
 
2012-08-26 03:50:27 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?

How can the victim of a sex crime be charged?


I meant with murder and stuff.

I'm not an expert regarding age of consent laws. Couldn't a 17-year-old be charged in some places if they do it with a 15-year-old? Again, wouldn't they have to get an app for that?
 
2012-08-26 03:50:55 PM  

gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.


I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?
 
2012-08-26 03:52:41 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?


Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?
 
2012-08-26 03:52:53 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


The state leaders you mention are the ones making the laws that allow them to meet children at the side of the road for anonymous sex.

You are dodging the question. Do you think it is OK that a 56 year old man was having sex with a 17 year old child?
 
2012-08-26 03:54:01 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

Please tell me how you rationalize a 56 year old man arranging a meeting with a 17 year old child for sex at a public toilet.

The man is a child molester.


What's there to "rationalize"? Two consenting males of age in the eyes of the law agreed to meet and have sex. One was older than the other.

You look at it and see only a filthy old man "preying" on a poor defenseless child. Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?
 
2012-08-26 03:55:50 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?

Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?


What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.
 
2012-08-26 03:57:15 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?


Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.
 
2012-08-26 04:01:05 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?


I'd consider the (56?) year old a predator in Texas (where it's legal) but I also agree there is a difference between a creeper like him and a babyfarker (it's awwwwright!) molesting 5 year olds. I just think a man like him should be ostracized as a creepy fark.

OF course Feckingmorons is a farking moran, so who knows?
 
2012-08-26 04:01:27 PM  

feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.


That's an open ended assertion.
 
2012-08-26 04:04:38 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?

Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?

What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.


As Gordon Ramsay would say, "Are you taking the piss?" I'll be really bummed if you've been trolling this whole time. There's infidelity all over the place. And are you aware of the average age people lose their virginity and how many partners they have in an average lifetime? (Sadly, I'm bringing that average down for everyone.)

Link

But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

Theories vary about why more people appear to be cheating. Among older people, a host of newer drugs and treatments are making it easier to be sexual, and in some cases unfaithful - Viagra and other remedies for erectile dysfunction, estrogen and testosterone supplements to maintain women's sex drive and vaginal health, even advances like better hip replacements.
 
2012-08-26 04:05:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished....

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together ...

Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


18 is the line drawn, but not rule without exception. Some states allow sexual relations between younger similar aged partners -with parental consent oddly enough- others allow exceptions as low as 16 if married with parental consent. Others place a 5 year age restriction between the partners, still others tend to recognise a couple in a viable relationship and won't prosecute the first one to turn 18. The magic number of 18 is a place to start as that is the delegated age of being an adult.

Would I freak out if my 16 yr were messing with a senior in highschool? Probably, but not because of the age difference. If she were having sexual relations with anyone older than that? Why yes, age would factor would come into consideration as this person is now an adult and has the option of seeking out other like minded adults. You hit that magic mark of being 25% older, and I going to start to wonder what kind of head case you really are.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:03 PM  

thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.


The assertion also doesn't account for people who don't HAVE spouses.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:16 PM  
I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:21 PM  

thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.


Read the Psychology Today article that shows it. Psychology Today should be objective enough for Fark.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:37 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.


I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.


No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.
 
2012-08-26 04:08:59 PM  

Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.


The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.
 
2012-08-26 04:14:47 PM  

feckingmorons: Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.

The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.


And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.
 
2012-08-26 04:15:28 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?


You make little sense. 17 year olds are children until they reach the age of majority. Adults should not have sex with children. Do you not agree with that?

Gibbons are monogamous.
Gibbons (family: Hylobatidae ) are among the standard bearers
of social monogamy in primates. Since the brief,
pioneering study of a wild, white-handed gibbon
population (H. lar) by Carpenter (1940) in the late
1930s, there has been little doubt that the basic social
unit of the genus is the 'monogamous family' (Kleiman,
1981; Leighton, 1987).


Do you just make everything up to fit your worldview so you can champion the NAMBLA cause?
 
2012-08-26 04:15:38 PM  

feckingmorons: Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.

The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.


That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.
 
2012-08-26 04:17:26 PM  

gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.


The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.
 
2012-08-26 04:17:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.

I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.

No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.


We became "enlightened" when we became a society that expected the babby daddy to stick around and care for their offspring. The contract of marriage made it easier to define when babby daddy or babby momma was straying.

I think there are actully monogamous critters out there such as swans and the like.
 
2012-08-26 04:19:12 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.


So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?
 
2012-08-26 04:20:18 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

You make little sense. 17 year olds are children until they reach the age of majority. Adults should not have sex with children. Do you not agree with that?

Gibbons are monogamous. Gibbons (family: Hylobatidae ) are among the standard bearers
of social monogamy in primates. Since the brief,
pioneering study of a wild, white-handed gibbon
population (H. lar) by Carpenter (1940) in the late
1930s, there has been little doubt that the basic social
unit of the genus is the 'monogamous family' (Kleiman,
1981; Leighton, 1987).

Do you just make everything up to fit your worldview so you can champion the NAMBLA cause?


They're "children" until 18, then they're "half-children" until 21. Maybe we could do something to make it simpler, like make 21 the age of adulthood and making it illegal for anyone over 21 to be anywhere near anyone under 21 for any reason? Would that help your rabid moral outrage?

Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?
 
2012-08-26 04:20:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.

Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


Fun fact: A lot of Red states and "values voters" strongholds have lower ages of consent than the evil, liberal California.

My opinion is that the line blurs from about 17 to 26, some kids are ready to handle the responsibility of being sexually active in high school, most still can't handle it when they're out of college. I also have a broader and more varied definition of "predator" since the man who stalks lonely widows to be sugar mamas is just as much a predator as the one who cruises craigslist for 14 year old pussy, the difference is the impact on the victim.

But this is irrelevant. While there are some open homosexuals and some democrats who engage in public hookups, they are mostly people who are closeted, repressed, don't want to get caught by using normal channels (nightclubs, gay bars, less anonymous dating sites and listings) and "outed" and such people tend to be Republicans. You can always find exceptions, but the rule is pretty solid that most of the cruising will be Republicans.

Unsurprisingly this slightly illegal activity (you can't have sex in a public restroom) will be mostly-ignored while a certain other slightly illegal activity (being loud and liberal too close to a building full of oh-so-sensitive Republicans) will be instigated, cracked-down upon, and stomped.
 
2012-08-26 04:23:30 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.

I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.

No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.

We became "enlightened" when we became a society that expected the babby daddy to stick around and care for their offspring. The contract of marriage made it easier to define when babby daddy or babby momma was straying.

I think there are actully monogamous critters out there such as swans and the like.


Funny, communal animals where non-monogamous sex is rampant also learned that. Lions, chimps, gorillas, wolves, all stick together and care for the young, males and females. Humans did the same in their various groups and tribes before the idea of marriage was created.
 
2012-08-26 04:23:48 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.


No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.
 
2012-08-26 04:24:37 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?


Yes, it is stipulated that he did. If it was criminal is to be decided by the Court.
 
2012-08-26 04:26:38 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.


Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

newhealthadvances.com
 
2012-08-26 04:30:01 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?


So you are in favor of adult males having sex with minors because we are Great Apes, and people have had multiple sex partners since before recorded history (which is odd because if it is before it was recorded how do you know)?

I wonder how the parents of the boy feel about the Great Apes theory.
 
2012-08-26 04:31:14 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.


I think that many of those 17-year-olds would feel insulted that you keep comparing them to two-year-olds.

He broke a law against sex in public restrooms. He did not break any laws regarding "child rape". You can keep crowing and gnashing all you want about how teenagers are exactly like toddlers, all it's doing is making you look more and more unhinged.
 
2012-08-26 04:34:28 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?

So you are in favor of adult males having sex with minors because we are Great Apes, and people have had multiple sex partners since before recorded history (which is odd because if it is before it was recorded how do you know)?

I wonder how the parents of the boy feel about the Great Apes theory.


Wow, that was a really idiotic chain of connections you just made. That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.

Seriously,all you're doing is repeating "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" over and over, either ignoring or demonizing everything people are trying to discuss with you.
 
2012-08-26 04:35:24 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.

Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

[newhealthadvances.com image 325x244]


Is there a reason you stand up for 56 year old men who have sex with minors. My position is the norm, most people think it is disgusting, even most people in his district, heck even the Democratic (DFL) governor finds it outrageous
"I think it's just something that goes beyond the morals of Minnesotans - to solicit on Craigslist sex with a minor and do it in a public area, publicly owned area, as a state legislator, and come back to the parking lot with his clothes disheveled," Dayton told reporters at the Capitol. "It's not about whether it's a same-sex or a heterosexual act. It would be the same if it were the same circumstances involving a heterosexual individual."


You seem like the odd man out supporting a pervert. 

You still won't state unequivocally if you think Gauthier's behavior is acceptable or not. Which is it, yes or no?
 
2012-08-26 04:37:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.


No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?
 
2012-08-26 04:38:15 PM  
GOPers, you are the biggest enemy of this nation.
 
2012-08-26 04:40:38 PM  

TheBigJerk: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this...

...Fun fact: A lot of Red states and "values voters" strongholds have lower ages of consent than the evil, liberal California.

My opinion is that the line blurs from about 17 to 26, some kids are ready to handle the responsibility of being sexually active in high school, most still can't handle it when they're out of college. I also have a broader and more varied definition of "predator" since the man who stalks lonely widows to be sugar mamas is just as much a predator as the one who cruises craigslist for 14 year old pussy, the difference is the impact on the victim.

But this is irrelevant. While there are some open homosexuals and some democrats who engage in public hookups, they are mostly people who are closeted, repressed, don't want to get caught by using normal channels (nightclubs, gay bars, less anonymous dating sites and listings) and "outed" and such people tend to be Republicans. You can always find exceptions, but the rule is pretty solid that most of the cruising will be Republicans.

Unsurprisingly this slightly illegal activity (you can't have sex in a public restroom) will be mostly-ignored while a certain other slightly illegal activity (being loud and liberal too close to a building full of oh-so-sensitive Republicans) will be instigated, cracked-down upon, and stomped.

And rightly so as this is a republican convention and is attended by republicans. But the same could be said about who will be out cruising for johns at the DNC.

You are also missing the demand for increase in skin traffic as a result of the influx of support staff, news staff, ... and protesters. Maybe all those protestors are out soliciting gay sex and not the visiting necessarily the republicans. Hmmmm.

Correlation/causation yada, yada, yada

 
2012-08-26 04:40:54 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.


That particular discussion was of your making because you are wont to dance around the subject and will not admit that it is wrong for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys. I've provided evidence that the majority of humans are monogamous, you won't address facts that do not support your argument so you have avoided discussing the peer reviewed article to which I linked.

Even if we were to stipulate that monomagy is not the norm, we can't leap to the conclusion that meeting boys at rest stops after soliciting them for no strings attached sex is normal. It is a disgusting perversion. Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.
 
2012-08-26 04:43:55 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.

Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

[newhealthadvances.com image 325x244]

Is there a reason you stand up for 56 year old men who have sex with minors. My position is the norm, most people think it is disgusting, even most people in his district, heck even the Democratic (DFL) governor finds it outrageous "I think it's just something that goes beyond the morals of Minnesotans - to solicit on Craigslist sex with a minor and do it in a public area, publicly owned area, as a state legislator, and come back to the parking lot with his clothes disheveled," Dayton told reporters at the Capitol. "It's not about whether it's a same-sex or a heterosexual act. It would be the same if it were the same circumstances involving a heterosexual individual."

You seem like the odd man out supporting a pervert. 

You still won't state unequivocally if you think Gauthier's behavior is acceptable or not. Which is it, yes or no?


I have already presented you with a great deal of information and you have not answered my question. You also seem to live in a fantasy world in which the law = morality and people are always monogamous and always have been and people are virgins until their wedding nights. The previous commenters are correct. You seem insane and unhinged because you refuse to acknowledge a difference between Bristol Palin and the baby Bristol Palin gave birth to. (Trigooliack? Shiat. Something like that.)
 
2012-08-26 04:47:20 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?


Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".
 
2012-08-26 04:49:18 PM  

buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?


Not that I am aware, but they should have.
 
2012-08-26 04:51:26 PM  
JerkyMeat:

www.thesneeze.com

GOPers, you are the biggest enemy of this nation!
 
2012-08-26 04:52:10 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.

That particular discussion was of your making because you are wont to dance around the subject and will not admit that it is wrong for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys. I've provided evidence that the majority of humans are monogamous, you won't address facts that do not support your argument so you have avoided discussing the peer reviewed article to which I linked.

Even if we were to stipulate that monomagy is not the norm, we can't leap to the conclusion that meeting boys at rest stops after soliciting them for no strings attached sex is normal. It is a disgusting perversion. Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.


You're making a damn lot of assumptions in order to be angry at me for not agreeing with you. I also only have to look around and see a world where many humans are NOT monogamous. Since different groups of people in different places evolve differently, perhaps the truth is that some populations are and some aren't.

You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.
 
2012-08-26 04:52:19 PM  

feckingmorons: thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.

Read the Psychology Today article that shows it. Psychology Today should be objective enough for Fark.


I was suggesting that your assertion was vague, not unfounded.
 
2012-08-26 04:54:23 PM  

feckingmorons: Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.


Unless they're monogamous.
 
2012-08-26 04:55:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?

Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".


So is your answer yes, it is OK for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys.

Yet you think I'm insane.

Even the pervert that did it thinks it is wrong as demonstrated by he withdrawal from the ballot.

You're defending the indefensible.
 
2012-08-26 04:55:46 PM  
Actually it is part of Obama's plan to declare a state of emergency, send in the conservation corps brownshirts, and round up everyone at the Republican convention into FEMA camps.
 
2012-08-26 04:59:04 PM  
Is the Florida tag too embarassed to be associated with Tampa?
 
2012-08-26 05:00:26 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.


You need a basic education and a dictionary. Normal is what is the norm. It is not different for everyone. Sexual assignations at rest stops are not the norm for any population.

I'm not angry with you at all, simply debating the propriety of old men having sex with boys. I think it is wrong and you apparently don't. There is nothing to be angry about, it is simply your opinion.

I wouldn't let you babysit my kids, but I'm not angry with you.
 
2012-08-26 05:00:34 PM  

gimmegimme: cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.

But Republicans have what job creators crave.

[thisdistractedglobe.com image 500x272]

It's got free market.


who is the trannie on the right?
 
2012-08-26 05:01:05 PM  

Bucky Katt: Is the Florida tag too embarassed to be associated with Tampa?


It was hanging out in Miami but got blown away.
 
2012-08-26 05:07:00 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?

Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".

So is your answer yes, it is OK for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys.

Yet you think I'm insane.

Even the pervert that did it thinks it is wrong as demonstrated by he withdrawal from the ballot.

You're defending the indefensible.


I'm sorry that I don't see 17-year-olds as being exactly like 2-year-olds, frankly it's insulting. He was of legal age, consenting, and it was within the law for them to have sex. The only illegal part was the location. You're so hung up on the older man's age and the idea that 17-year-olds have the mental acuities of toddlers that you seem unable to do anything but scream about "THE CHILDREN!!".

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.

You need a basic education and a dictionary. Normal is what is the norm. It is not different for everyone. Sexual assignations at rest stops are not the norm for any population.

I'm not angry with you at all, simply debating the propriety of old men having sex with boys. I think it is wrong and you apparently don't. There is nothing to be angry about, it is simply your opinion.

I wouldn't let you babysit my kids, but I'm not angry with you.


The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.

I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.
 
2012-08-26 05:09:03 PM  

machoprogrammer: buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?

Not that I am aware, but they should have.


Wiki says there have been a few challenges. Apparently, the courts sided each time with te government, citing the law saying that while non-disruptive free speech is allowed, the government has the power to dictate the "time, place and manner" of the speech, as long as they don't do so based on content. There is a citation of one guy who was carrying an anti-Bush sign at an event, and he was the only one asked to go into a FSZ while those carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to stay on the sidewalks lining the streets. Looks like he lost that one, though.
 
2012-08-26 05:10:00 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.


Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.
 
2012-08-26 05:13:36 PM  

feckingmorons:

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.



www.harpers.org
 
2012-08-26 05:14:19 PM  

buckler: machoprogrammer: buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?

Not that I am aware, but they should have.

Wiki says there have been a few challenges. Apparently, the courts sided each time with te government, citing the law saying that while non-disruptive free speech is allowed, the government has the power to dictate the "time, place and manner" of the speech, as long as they don't do so based on content. There is a citation of one guy who was carrying an anti-Bush sign at an event, and he was the only one asked to go into a FSZ while those carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to stay on the sidewalks lining the streets. Looks like he lost that one, though.


I think this is what you were talking about. Free speech zones are complete nonsense. One can express one's opinion in public without committing a crime.

The charges were dismissed, they never should have been arrested.
 
2012-08-26 05:14:56 PM  

Bonzo_1116: feckingmorons:

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

[www.harpers.org image 515x337]


I wouldn'd describe that bunch as normal. I think we can all agree on that.
 
2012-08-26 05:15:44 PM  
All this talk of underage sex and monogamy in a GOP convention thread and NOT ONE MENTION OF POLYGAMY???

static2.businessinsider.com

Wives, I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-26 05:18:39 PM  

feckingmorons: The charges were dismissed, they never should have been arrested.


Correct! Got confused a second.
 
2012-08-26 05:19:46 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.


Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.
 
2012-08-26 05:32:53 PM  
Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?
 
2012-08-26 05:41:58 PM  
So teachers having sex with your senior highschooler isn't a problem?. Gotta hand it to those kids who'll do anything for an "a". How about military TI's having sex with their new conscripts or college profs with their students? you ok with these circumstances?

Even consenual has its limitations.

Let's just agree that old men praying on kids turning "of age" is wrong and just give it rest already.
 
2012-08-26 05:43:54 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.

Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.


Priest or Legislator, adults shouldn't have sex with children. What kind of complete loser do you need to be to want to have sex with a minor?

I never said it wasn't legal. I said it wasn't proper or moral. I said it was unfortunate it was not illegal, but with legislators having sex with 17 year olds what do you expect. In most states he would be in prison where he belongs.
 
2012-08-26 05:51:36 PM  

gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?


Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.
 
2012-08-26 06:22:34 PM  

clowncar on fire: Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.


Sure ask a different question than the one they candidate approved, gets you ejected. Protesting outside of the fenced in 'free speech zone' gets you arrested. Not to mention that often the guy throwing bottles at the cops is an under cover cop himself.
 
2012-08-26 07:16:33 PM  

clowncar on fire: gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?

Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.


Isn't that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?

Jesus Christ, does any right-winger care about the founding principles of this country?

www.ushistory.org

Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner.
 
2012-08-26 07:30:41 PM  

gibbon1: clowncar on fire: Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Sure ask a different question than the one they candidate approved, gets you ejected. Protesting outside of the fenced in 'free speech zone' gets you arrested. Not to mention that often the guy throwing bottles at the cops is an under cover cop himself.


Can you post links to the news articles from whence you gleaned those facts?

Oh, you made that shiat up, oh well no need for facts if you live in a fantasy world.
 
2012-08-26 07:31:58 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?

Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.

Isn't that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?

Jesus Christ, does any right-winger care about the founding principles of this country?

[www.ushistory.org image 300x275]

Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner.


So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.
 
2012-08-26 07:39:34 PM  
The whole thread and not a single person has posted Snake or Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons?

/man, fark is slipping.
 
2012-08-26 07:47:47 PM  

feckingmorons: So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.



You have it backwards.

how2becomeanfbiagent.com

Crime fighters

www.spring.org.uk

Fire fighters

images.politico.com

Freedom fighters
 
2012-08-26 07:52:49 PM  

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

ZOMG! I don't want to have to walk 50 extra feet because other people are exercising their First Amendment rights.

What kind of American are you?


You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.

I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect. So, good job with that, but I see its pointless to engage you in adult discourse. Carry on with your pseudo-political theatrics.
 
2012-08-26 07:57:58 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

...
The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

....

You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.
.


UC Davis. Irvine doesn't have enough hippies to sustain a good protest. 

/Unless there's been a second UC protest pepper spray incident....
 
2012-08-26 07:58:22 PM  

Amos Quito: feckingmorons: So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.


You have it backwards.

[how2becomeanfbiagent.com image 512x355]

Crime fighters

[www.spring.org.uk image 420x233]

Fire fighters

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Freedom fighters



-snert-

Well done!
 
2012-08-26 08:03:45 PM  

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.

I'm quite comfortable with my use of language, thanks.

If you don't like it talk to the makers of the movie Strip Club King, they called him infamous long before I did.

Loaded language is simply things you don't like. Redner while admirably an advocate of the First Amendment is a scumbag who exploits women for his personal gain.

OWS are simply social misfits who can't hold a job and expect their every need to be catered to by others at no cost or burden to them. I hold them in the greatest contempt. They are also an ineffective political movement.


Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.
 
2012-08-26 08:07:18 PM  

clowncar on fire: So teachers having sex with your senior highschooler isn't a problem?. Gotta hand it to those kids who'll do anything for an "a". How about military TI's having sex with their new conscripts or college profs with their students? you ok with these circumstances?

Even consenual has its limitations.

Let's just agree that old men praying on kids turning "of age" is wrong and just give it rest already.


Fine. 17-year-olds are the exact same as 2-year-olds. Consentual sex involving of-age people is terrible and sinful. America will forever be immature about all things sexual.

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.

Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.

Priest or Legislator, adults shouldn't have sex with children. What kind of complete loser do you need to be to want to have sex with a minor?

I never said it wasn't legal. I said it wasn't proper or moral. I said it was unfortunate it was not illegal, but with legislators having sex with 17 year olds what do you expect. In most states he would be in prison where he belongs.


I guess I'm just strange for not thinking that people on the cusp of adulthood should be treated like toddlers because they're somehow unable to think and reason and understand anything until they magically acquire all those abilities the instant they hit a pre-determined number.
 
2012-08-26 08:08:27 PM  

feckingmorons: Can you post links to the news articles from whence you gleaned those facts?

Oh, you made that shiat up, oh well no need for facts if you live in a fantasy world.


Link
This kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect


Dumbass, the teabaggers have been co-opted by folks like the Kock brothers. They are/were aregueing for things that make rich people richer. You only get the blugeon when you go against the status quo.
 
2012-08-26 08:10:30 PM  

PsiChick: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.

I'm quite comfortable with my use of language, thanks.

If you don't like it talk to the makers of the movie Strip Club King, they called him infamous long before I did.

Loaded language is simply things you don't like. Redner while admirably an advocate of the First Amendment is a scumbag who exploits women for his personal gain.

OWS are simply social misfits who can't hold a job and expect their every need to be catered to by others at no cost or burden to them. I hold them in the greatest contempt. They are also an ineffective political movement.

Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.


Save your breath. It's all the fault of people under a certain age that we're even having these problems, don't'cha know. Bootstraps and entitlement and all that, walk to school barefoot uphill both ways ten feet of snow carrying a horse. If you're not enamored by that, you're a lazy ungrateful drain on society.
 
2012-08-26 08:18:53 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

ZOMG! I don't want to have to walk 50 extra feet because other people are exercising their First Amendment rights.

What kind of American are you?

You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.

I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect. So, good job with that, but I see its pointless to engage you in adult discourse. Carry on with your pseudo-political theatrics.


Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?
 
2012-08-26 08:23:58 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?


I know for a fact that you've consistently referred to Trayvon Martin as a "kid" in numerous Zimmerman threads.
 
2012-08-26 08:29:35 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?

I know for a fact that you've consistently referred to Trayvon Martin as a "kid" in numerous Zimmerman threads.


You're absolutely right. When I asked, I was searching around to see if he was one of the soulless asshole morons who describes Trayvon Martin as a cross between Tyler Durden, Al Capone and Mike Tyson pre-Hangover. I found no evidence of this, so I felt no need to press him (or her, I dunno) further on the issue.

I was very glad to find out that he wasn't the kind of POS who demands justice for the social group to which he belongs and wants everyone else to fark off and die. Only a reprehensible subhuman wishes separate but unequal, right?
 
2012-08-26 08:33:17 PM  

gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..


Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.
 
2012-08-26 08:34:23 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.


Justice Scalia? Is that you?
 
2012-08-26 08:35:46 PM  

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.

Justice Scalia? Is that you?


Wow. Ignorant AND trolling. I didn't expect that one. Have fun on the internet, kid, but please... don't procreate or vote. Kthx
 
2012-08-26 08:39:28 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.

Justice Scalia? Is that you?

Wow. Ignorant AND trolling. I didn't expect that one. Have fun on the internet, kid, but please... don't procreate or vote. Kthx


api.ning.com

I think of myself as the one on the right.
 
2012-08-26 08:41:18 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?


This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.
 
2012-08-26 08:46:28 PM  

Magruda: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?

This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.


I am just trying to send him heartlove because you're right; you can't argue about the rights of Americans to protest with someone who hasn't gotten to the Constitution unit in eighth grade social studies.
 
2012-08-26 09:06:47 PM  

PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.


Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.
 
2012-08-26 09:08:06 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I guess I'm just strange


I'll agree with that part.
 
2012-08-26 09:10:44 PM  

Magruda: LinkThis kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.


You linked to Wikipedia, that is as authoritative as a comic book.

You don't have any cogent argument.
 
2012-08-26 09:10:46 PM  

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.

Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.


When will they stop being un-American by challenging the status quo and protesting what they feel is injustice in society? George Washington would NEVER do that.
 
2012-08-26 09:15:29 PM  

feckingmorons: Magruda: LinkThis kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.

You linked to Wikipedia, that is as authoritative as a comic book.

You don't have any cogent argument.


You think that a baby and a 17-year-old have the same sexual identity.

You clearly have some deep-seated issues that Detective Stabler can help you work through.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-26 09:18:36 PM  

feckingmorons: You linked to Wikipedia, that is as authoritative as a comic book.

You don't have any cogent argument.


You don't have to go to wiki to learn about cointelpro. Like i said, i don't expect you to educate yourself and i sure as hell ain't going to do it.
 
2012-08-26 09:18:40 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.

Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.

When will they stop being un-American by challenging the status quo and protesting what they feel is injustice in society? George Washington would NEVER do that.


If they could decide on a cause it would be great. In Tampa they are upset that someone got pulled over for a traffic infraction and they want to shut down Bain Capital because it is Capitalist. Yet they spend the day in a private park paid for through the same Capitalism they hate so.

Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect. The campers in the park are just silly.
 
2012-08-26 09:19:26 PM  

gimmegimme: You think that a baby and a 17-year-old have the same sexual identity.


I never said that, I said they were both minor children.

I think you watch too much television.
 
2012-08-26 09:23:54 PM  

feckingmorons: Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect.


Are you even familiar with King's later works? Obviously not.
 
2012-08-26 09:24:51 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.

Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.

When will they stop being un-American by challenging the status quo and protesting what they feel is injustice in society? George Washington would NEVER do that.

If they could decide on a cause it would be great. In Tampa they are upset that someone got pulled over for a traffic infraction and they want to shut down Bain Capital because it is Capitalist. Yet they spend the day in a private park paid for through the same Capitalism they hate so.

Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect. The campers in the park are just silly.


Right-wingers often fail to understand that their lack of ability to google isn't someone else's fault. If you don't understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to change, then you are either too stupid to understand or being willfully ignorant.
 
2012-08-26 09:31:07 PM  

Magruda: feckingmorons: Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect.

Are you even familiar with King's later works? Obviously not.


Do you mean the poor people's campaign. Well that never came to fruition, and had it even if they were all drunk and blinded in one eye they would be more organized than the OWS clowns.
 
2012-08-26 09:32:24 PM  

gimmegimme: Right-wingers often fail to understand that their lack of ability to google isn't someone else's fault. If you don't understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to change, then you are either too stupid to understand or being willfully ignorant.


The can change at the jail, there is plenty of room for them when they start crapping on cop cars, pissing in the streets and raping the other unwashed people.
 
2012-08-26 09:35:19 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: Right-wingers often fail to understand that their lack of ability to google isn't someone else's fault. If you don't understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to change, then you are either too stupid to understand or being willfully ignorant.

The can change at the jail, there is plenty of room for them when they start crapping on cop cars, pissing in the streets and raping the other unwashed people.


Someday you will realize, much to your dismay, that the hippies were right in the 1960s, dirty as they may have been.

Unless you think it was worth pissing away blood and fortune in Vietnam and having war crimes committed in our name. If you're for American leaders committing war crimes, I mean...I don't know what else I can say.
 
2012-08-26 09:36:13 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: I guess I'm just strange

I'll agree with that part.


Hey, you're the one who thinks 17-year-olds are the exact same as 2-year-olds both physically and mentally and should be treated as such and fark whatever they might have to think and say about the subject.

You can always write to the heads of states and tell them to stop being pedophiles and change the laws to protect the helpless unspoiled baby near-adults. Do it with the conservative states first, though, as a poster noted above they seem to like having the age of consent be lower than liberal states do.
 
2012-08-26 09:40:26 PM  

feckingmorons: Well that never came to fruition, and had it even if they were all drunk and blinded in one eye they would be more organized than the OWS clowns.


Well that's like your opinion based on nothing more than your speculation on a subject you know little to nothing about.
 
2012-08-26 09:44:21 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, you're the one who thinks 17-year-olds are the exact same as 2-year-olds both physically and mentally and should be treated as such and fark whatever they might have to think and say about the subject.


Would you be kind enough to link to where I said that. It might be hard to find since I never said that, but take your time.
 
2012-08-26 09:44:53 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: Right-wingers often fail to understand that their lack of ability to google isn't someone else's fault. If you don't understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to change, then you are either too stupid to understand or being willfully ignorant.

The can change at the jail, there is plenty of room for them when they start crapping on cop cars, pissing in the streets and raping the other unwashed people.

Someday you will realize, much to your dismay, that the hippies were right in the 1960s, dirty as they may have been.

Unless you think it was worth pissing away blood and fortune in Vietnam and having war crimes committed in our name. If you're for American leaders committing war crimes, I mean...I don't know what else I can say.


This
 
2012-08-26 09:45:04 PM  

Magruda: feckingmorons: Well that never came to fruition, and had it even if they were all drunk and blinded in one eye they would be more organized than the OWS clowns.

Well that's like your opinion based on nothing more than your speculation on a subject you know little to nothing about.



Of which occupy movement are you part?
 
2012-08-26 09:46:22 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.

Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.

When will they stop being un-American by challenging the status quo and protesting what they feel is injustice in society? George Washington would NEVER do that.

If they could decide on a cause it would be great. In Tampa they are upset that someone got pulled over for a traffic infraction and they want to shut down Bain Capital because it is Capitalist. Yet they spend the day in a private park paid for through the same Capitalism they hate so.

Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect. The campers in the park are just silly.


Congratulations, you're an idiot.

It's not that Bain Capital is capitalist, it's that Bain Capital is a parasite. What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?

You cannot logically support the existence of companies like Bain, that kill American jobs by sending them overseas, while biatching about America's unemployment rate.
 
2012-08-26 09:48:33 PM  

feckingmorons: Magruda: feckingmorons: Well that never came to fruition, and had it even if they were all drunk and blinded in one eye they would be more organized than the OWS clowns.

Well that's like your opinion based on nothing more than your speculation on a subject you know little to nothing about.


Of which occupy movement are you part?


That's a wonderful question. When a group of people wishes to express dismay at government policy, they must align into a well-organized national group with a discernible leadership hierarchy. This is how all Fortune 500 companies work, and Occupy has borrowed that model. They've also followed the tradition of the American revolutionaries, who learned traditional war tactics from the Europeans and followed them to the letter with great success.
 
2012-08-26 09:49:41 PM  

feckingmorons: Of which occupy movement are you part?


None, i just follow it.
 
2012-08-26 09:54:55 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, you're the one who thinks 17-year-olds are the exact same as 2-year-olds both physically and mentally and should be treated as such and fark whatever they might have to think and say about the subject.

Would you be kind enough to link to where I said that. It might be hard to find since I never said that, but take your time.


You've said it all thread with your "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" and your "I don't care if it was consentual and he was of legal age, it's still pedophilia because the man was old!" ranting. That's your one note you've been bleating all thread.
 
2012-08-26 09:59:31 PM  

LordJiro: What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?


Profit for workers who have retirement funds. Jobs for thousands, and probably a restaurant or two you have eaten at this week. Outback, Carrabbas, Bonefish Grill, Roy's, Flemings, Dominos, DunkinDonuts, Baskin Robbins. Perhaps before you went to see a movie at AMC. There are hundreds of other firms in which Bain Capital (assuming you mean Bain Capital Private Equity).

More people have been fired from GM and Chrysler than Bain Capital ever pink slipped. As an example look at the WARN notices for Indiana (the first ones that came up in Google), see GM there over and over, see vendors to GM. Yes, time and time again you see people fired because of the government take over of GM.

Do you see any Bain Capital companies on there?

Facts really ruin things for you anti-Capitalists, don't they. I rebutted the lie filled article that started this thread, and I am now using facts to rebut your absurd arguments.

Life is not a political campaign ad.
 
2012-08-26 10:01:27 PM  
Link to the WARN notices, it was malformed and dropped it.


Here are Michigan's
 
2012-08-26 10:03:58 PM  

feckingmorons: Life is not a political campaign ad.


No, but your post is.

Keep sucking that Kock
 
2012-08-26 10:05:29 PM  

feckingmorons: LordJiro: What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?

Profit for workers who have retirement funds. Jobs for thousands, and probably a restaurant or two you have eaten at this week. Outback, Carrabbas, Bonefish Grill, Roy's, Flemings, Dominos, DunkinDonuts, Baskin Robbins. Perhaps before you went to see a movie at AMC. There are hundreds of other firms in which Bain Capital (assuming you mean Bain Capital Private Equity).

More people have been fired from GM and Chrysler than Bain Capital ever pink slipped. As an example look at the WARN notices for Indiana (the first ones that came up in Google), see GM there over and over, see vendors to GM. Yes, time and time again you see people fired because of the government take over of GM.

Do you see any Bain Capital companies on there?

Facts really ruin things for you anti-Capitalists, don't they. I rebutted the lie filled article that started this thread, and I am now using facts to rebut your absurd arguments.

Life is not a political campaign ad.


It's always amsuing and sad how people who think there should be a little more responsibility, accountability, and freedom are immediately denounced and demonized as "anti-whatever". A nice little evolution of the "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, THEN YOU'RE AGAINST US!" mindset.
 
2012-08-26 10:05:37 PM  

Magruda: feckingmorons: Life is not a political campaign ad.

No, but your post is.

Keep sucking that Kock Koch


FTFM
 
2012-08-26 10:10:57 PM  

Magruda: feckingmorons: Life is not a political campaign ad.

No, but your post is.

Keep sucking that Kock


That is it, that is all you have?

You've failed.
 
2012-08-26 10:20:08 PM  

feckingmorons: LordJiro: What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?

Profit for workers who have retirement funds. Jobs for thousands, and probably a restaurant or two you have eaten at this week. Outback, Carrabbas, Bonefish Grill, Roy's, Flemings, Dominos, DunkinDonuts, Baskin Robbins. Perhaps before you went to see a movie at AMC. There are hundreds of other firms in which Bain Capital (assuming you mean Bain Capital Private Equity).

More people have been fired from GM and Chrysler than Bain Capital ever pink slipped. As an example look at the WARN notices for Indiana (the first ones that came up in Google), see GM there over and over, see vendors to GM. Yes, time and time again you see people fired because of the government take over of GM.

Do you see any Bain Capital companies on there?

Facts really ruin things for you anti-Capitalists, don't they. I rebutted the lie filled article that started this thread, and I am now using facts to rebut your absurd arguments.

Life is not a political campaign ad.


Do you realize how many Dunkin' Donuts workers, for example, are on social services because they can't make ends meet on 8 dollars an hour? Are you honestly claiming that anyone but a 15-year-old kid living at home can pay their bills working at Dunkin' Donuts?
 
2012-08-26 10:40:35 PM  

gimmegimme: Do you realize how many Dunkin' Donuts workers, for example, are on social services because they can't make ends meet on 8 dollars an hour? Are you honestly claiming that anyone but a 15-year-old kid living at home can pay their bills working at Dunkin' Donuts?


So should they quit? You know the salaries of all the Donut places, wow you must be brilliant.

Your user name belies your sense of entitlement.
 
2012-08-26 11:09:31 PM  

gimmegimme: Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?


This is probably the closest thing to the truth although to be honest, I'd say that locking arms unarmed and having the strength of your convictions that the Constitution and the system will work out for you in the end is way less "pussy" than the grandstanding fundraisers that Teabaggers call protests where they wave around guns and threaten armed insurrection against things that aren't happening, completely on the side of the status quo with the backing of an entire political party and the media. Naive maybe, but not "pussy". Occupy for the most part is like a proto-Tienaman Square. But to be fair, Teabaggers aren't all talk either. They're just better at tactics. They make this great PR face, and then do things like burn down another religion's church, cut a Congressman's gas line, shoot up a Unitarian church because libs. That way they can say "hey look at all these peaceful rally guys. Even though it's calling for armed insurrection it's totally cool because the cops didn't deal with us." (while accomplishing militant activity like a terror cell where they can cover up a coordinated propaganda/action effort by just saying "lol isolated incident despite all the connections to previous rhetoric" ) but peaceful protests become "riots" because the cops decided to start an attack. It's using the same logic as a right wing South American country going "Look how well behaved these Contras are. Now look at these filthy leftist guerillas." or when KKK/neo-nazis are ignored/looked the other way at/assisted by police they can go "Hey man look at our civil white power rallies, and how we're not in jail. Not like those darkies and white guilt people".
And the status quo thing.
And Occupy can't go the gun route anyway. They're already being watched by an anti-Occupy Trapwire surveillance program meant to deconstruct it, been under a coordinated nationwide crackdown by police, and pretty much all but legally-declaed enemies of the state and domestic terrorists because their faces keep assaulting cop fists and boots. They'll up the repression in no time and use it as an excuse (not that they ever need one, but hey hearts and minds) to shut the whole thing down as domestic terrorism, especially since as I mentioned before, mainstream media is incapable of declaring police terrorism as violence. Meanwhile, locking arms, not letting yourself be kettled for a mass arrest and taking unmarked side routes, symbolic and minor property destruction is the greatest domestic threat to the nation and the height of violence.
We need a movement with the knowledge of the issues and of what's really going on, and decentralized/non-hierarchical principles that Occupy has, but with the militancy and tactical understanding of the Tea Party. As it is, the Tea Party is a bunch of misled and stupid rubes with fascist tendencies that would function as Contras or Brownshirts more than anything else. And a large part of Occupy akin to the Tienaman protesters with the naive belief that the system was actually supposed to work for us and that holding hands and playing nice for reform will do the trick (you don't ask or beg, you make or take; it's better to reclaim the commons or do things horizontally as a community on your own initiative than actually expect any politician, bureaucrat, or CEO to take your demands seriously. They didn't get to the top by saying "Sure yeah". They got there by "fark you I got mine and I don't play by the rules I make but I sure force others to"). I saw people at the NATO Summit who legitimately believed the cops wouldn't swing at them or fark with them outside the protest because they were in the "correct" crowd and being utterly polite. There are still people who believe if you just look good for the cameras, the media will be on your side. That's one reason, I'm mostly skeptical of claims of "agent provacateurs" because most of the time, cops can and will do the same thing without need of an excuse or facing anything other than a lawsuit later. But with every media lie and swung baton, I'm sure people are becoming less naive.
 
2012-08-26 11:10:06 PM  

Magruda: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?

This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.


The constitution I was referring to was the US Constitution. Here's the first amendment from it:

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

I don't see a "right to protest" anywhere within that. Which constitution were you referring to?

Snark aside, I'll assume you think the right to assemble and file a redress of grievances somehow means that all you have to do is say "I'm protesting by doing x" and that somehow makes "x" legal. It doesn't.
 
2012-08-26 11:13:12 PM  

feckingmorons: Magruda: feckingmorons: Life is not a political campaign ad.

No, but your post is.

Keep sucking that Kock

That is it, that is all you have?

You've failed.


Of course that's all they have. If they had facts on their side, they'd appeal to those.

/It's Koch Brothers, you mongoloid
 
2012-08-26 11:22:24 PM  
Oh jesus, I just realized this was crossposted to the Politics tab. No wonder it's drawn the intellectually inept from the woodwork. Carry on, tards.

wtfcontent.com
 
2012-08-26 11:25:05 PM  

feckingmorons: Affordable education is available at many universities


afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com

What with all the jobs to pay for them. Unless you're suggesting being a indebtured servant to the banks and the fed.

feckingmorons: education through high school is available free.


Most of the Occupy protesters I know personally are post-college. HS graduate won't get you shiat, since a college degree (even in STEM fields) doesn't mean you're going to get a job.

feckingmorons: Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.



Occupy has actually pointed out these issues. And Republicans share the blame. It was supply-side economics and Bush's policies that initially put us here. That and the whole debt ceiling fiasco ended with a downgrade specifically mentioning the Republican Party's actions in the legislature as a reason for the downgrade. Golden parachuting CEOs and companies like Bain haven't helped. Nor has outsourcing.
But yes, OWS is demonstrating against Obama a fair amount of the time. One thing Occupy has that the Tea Party doesn't is that Occupy is actually independent from both parties and does it's damnedest (and does pretty well) to not get co-opted. The Tea Party is pretty much just a subset of the Republican Party. Occupy refuses to play the game (which I think is a good decision). The Tea Party plays the game, but to be fair, they were already huge players. They had preset media and party infrastructure. So ironically, Occupy is risking everything for thinking outside the box and trying to do things decentralized/equal/bottom-up, while the Tea Party is not only playing the game with, they're doing it with no risk, and just riding others coattails to the top.
 
2012-08-26 11:31:45 PM  

feckingmorons: If they could decide on a cause it would be great. In Tampa they are upset that someone got pulled over for a traffic infraction and they want to shut down Bain Capital because it is Capitalist. Yet they spend the day in a private park paid for through the same Capitalism they hate so.

Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Concepcion Picciotto, Sr. Megan Rice... those are activists with a cause that we can all respect. The campers in the park are just silly.


It's decentralized for a purpose. It's a people's movement, which means whatever said people wanna focus on they do. People work at what they're dedicated to. And the symbiotic market/state relationship has colonized the globe and destroyed the commons. So they play the hands given to them/the positions they can. It's not like in a non-capitalist or non-propertarian society that park would just vanish into thin air. But due to government force on behalf of capitalists you have to play by the rules or take the risk of being physically assaulted. And your listed examples aren't universally respected or at least weren't always. And their causes were called silly too.
 
2012-08-26 11:37:49 PM  

gimmegimme: If you don't understand what the Occupy Movement is trying to change, then you are either too stupid to understand or being willfully ignorant.


Hey man, if there's a list of complex issues that the movement has the self-reflection to debate amongst themselves that range from local to global and it can't be summed up in a few bumper stickers then obviously they're speaking Klingon or being incoherent because I refuse to pay attention for more than five minutes. Clearly any mass political movement should be completely heterogenous and frozen in time so not to evolve their focus. Or they should only focus on one issue that Is The Cause Of All Our Problems at the expense of everything else. Because there's one isolated reason this all happens and not any sort of ecological chain of multiple fark-ups or anything.
And really, if people didn't get the point of OWS when it was literally just OWS and the message was super simplified, they're not going to take the time to understand once it's spread beyond that.
 
2012-08-26 11:40:37 PM  

LordJiro: It's not that Bain Capital is capitalist, it's that Bain Capital is a parasite. What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?


I don't know, that pretty much sums up alot of capitalism and "capitalists".
 
2012-08-27 12:04:28 AM  

m2313: LordJiro: It's not that Bain Capital is capitalist, it's that Bain Capital is a parasite. What does it produce, besides profit for a few already-wealthy individuals?

I don't know, that pretty much sums up alot of capitalism and "capitalists".


Properly executed, capitalism allows money to flow where it can make the most effect: i.e. where it can make the most additional money. Improperly executed, the money flows where it makes the most effect for a few people who happen to be touching the money at the time.

Squeeze down too hard, and new and innovative stuff has a hard time happening...loosen up too much and skimmers run wild. I think a bit of the problem in the last few decades has been the rise of computing, as this has led to so many kinds of groovy advances in all sorts of fields that laws/ethics/general societal understanding can't keep up. When these new things enter into our banking and money systems, it causes wide-ranging disruptions if we can't figure this shiat out.
 
2012-08-27 12:40:35 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Properly executed, capitalism allows money to flow where it can make the most effect: i.e. where it can make the most additional money. Improperly executed, the money flows where it makes the most effect for a few people who happen to be touching the money at the time.


And see, I think here lies my fundamental disagreement. You're right, in capitalism money just builds on money. It rewards the wealthy for already being so. But since I don't consider the greatest effect making a rich guy richer or having more currency it doesn't look that way to me. And I see these economic crises not as aberrations, but extreme examples of how inefficient distribution always is under this system. Consider that within miles of any homeless person is probably an abandoned house. Within miles of a hungry person with no money is probably a superstore or some food resource. Within miles of someone dying of a lack of treatment or insurance is a hospital with the appropriate tools. As you term it "improperly executed" is what I see the purpose and function of normal capitalism to be. I'd rather have Western style social democracy/capitalism than a centrally planned state socialist economy, but I think we can try and do better and go beyond that.

Bonzo_1116: Squeeze down too hard, and new and innovative stuff has a hard time happening...loosen up too much and skimmers run wild. I think a bit of the problem in the last few decades has been the rise of computing, as this has led to so many kinds of groovy advances in all sorts of fields that laws/ethics/general societal understanding can't keep up. When these new things enter into our banking and money systems, it causes wide-ranging disruptions if we can't figure this shiat out.


Eh, I think technology is just a tool. Big picture I consider it neutral, but since tech use isn't independent of the users, they take on the user's intentions and become an extension of them, hence not neutral.
But as with things such as scarcity and distribution, I don't believe we're waiting on the Jetson age of technology. Hell we could do fine with older forms of tech, if not uncomfortably. A changing revolution would be social not technological. It's more about social hierarchies and social ecology in my mind.

Granted, I'm anti-worker/boss division, but I'm not necessarily anti-market. Basically I don't see the capitalist market and state as competing wings of power, but as a cooperative symbiotic function meant to secure privilege for the few at the top in economic, social, and political spheres.
Libertarian socialist seems like a good way to describe it.
 
2012-08-27 12:43:47 AM  
One interesting idea would be to make money function more ecologically as opposed to this completely separate thing that can just accumulate on itself forever.
Maybe a demurrage system where you have to use it or lose it and keeps a steady cash flow and no one can hoard to one-up the other. Because economic inequality means social and political inequality as a result. They're not separate. Which is why I disagree with what most people call "libertarians".
 
2012-08-27 01:43:01 AM  


clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire:
However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.




You're leaving out provocateurs. Is this intentional?
 
2012-08-27 01:50:16 AM  
This thread has opened my eyes.

clowncar on fire is a terrible person who thinks that police brutality and disproportionate reaction are universally justified because of past instances of bad behavior in protests.
 
2012-08-27 02:21:52 AM  

clowncar on fire: And rightly so as this is a republican convention and is attended by republicans. But the same could be said about who will be out cruising for johns at the DNC.

You are also missing the demand for increase in skin traffic as a result of the influx of support staff, news staff, ... and protesters. Maybe all those protestors are out soliciting gay sex and not the visiting necessarily the republicans. Hmmmm.

Correlation/causation yada, yada, yada


As has been stated, THOSE people don't generally go cruising because they are not ashamed and afraid to go to a bar or a nightclub and take some hook-up to their hotel room.

The causative relationship is well-established, as is this one.

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-27 02:22:35 AM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-27 03:12:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Magruda: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?

This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.

The constitution I was referring to was the US Constitution. Here's the first amendment from it:

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

I don't see a "right to protest" anywhere within that. Which constitution were you referring to?

Snark aside, I'll assume you think the right to assemble and file a redress of grievances somehow means that all you have to do is say "I'm protesting by doing x" and that somehow makes "x" legal. It doesn't.


"You can exercise your right to free speech and grievances when we tell you, where we tell you, how we tell you, and why we tell you. Now get over there in the special pens we built for you to stand and exercise your rights away from everyone else."

Using you rlogic, we should brutally beat down and disperse all gatherings with a political bent that is even slightly negative, because it's not specifically in the Constitution (like a lot of other things that aren't specifically in there that we allow anyway) and therefore a threat to the country.
 
2012-08-27 03:15:26 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oh jesus, I just realized this was crossposted to the Politics tab. No wonder it's drawn the intellectually inept from the woodwork. Carry on, tards.

[wtfcontent.com image 400x285]


You certainly didn't bring anything intelligent or meaningful to the discussion. Pretty ironic.
 
2012-08-27 06:38:02 AM  

feckingmorons: That is it, that is all you have?

You've failed.


This coming from the guy who dismisses cointelpro because i linked to it from wiki, they also have articles on the French Revolution, that does not mean it did not happen. The fact that you don't know anything about cointelpro means you are ignorant of the world around you.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Snark aside, I'll assume you think the right to assemble and file a redress of grievances somehow means that all you have to do is say "I'm protesting by doing x" and that somehow makes "x" legal. It doesn't.


The highest court in the land has already ruled on this. You don't know this yet are talking like you are informed on this subject. Democracy does not mean that your ignorance is just as important as my knowledge.
 
2012-08-27 06:46:08 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oh jesus, I just realized this was crossposted to the Politics tab. No wonder it's drawn the intellectually inept from the woodwork. Carry on, tards.


You didn't know that the supreme court has ruled that protest is protected under the 1st amendment... Yeah, you better run.
 
2012-08-27 07:24:09 AM  

feckingmorons: I never said it wasn't legal. I said it wasn't proper or moral. I said it was unfortunate it was not illegal, but with legislators having sex with 17 year olds what do you expect. In most states he would be in prison where he belongs.


Not to weigh in on this issue, but you're simply factually incorrect in your final statement... The most common age of consent in the USA is 16 (29 states + DC); 9 more states set it at 17; only 12 have it at 18... So, in only 12 states would it be a crime... Hardly "most states"...
 
2012-08-27 07:27:10 AM  

gimmegimme: Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner


YOu know that John Adams defended them and theough all of them were innocent, right?


The Boston Massacre was a study in bad publicity, not a demonstration British ruthlessness.

Magruda: Dumbass, the teabaggers have been co-opted by folks like the Kock brothers. They are/were aregueing for things that make rich people richer. You only get the blugeon when you go against the status quo


No. You get the bludgeon when you block streets without a permit, when you unilaterally "occupy" land, when you encircle cops and actively resist them from moving prisoners, etc.

I am far more sympathetic to the goals of OWS
 
2012-08-27 07:36:29 AM  

liam76: gimmegimme: Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner

YOu know that John Adams defended them and theough all of them were innocent, right?


The Boston Massacre was a study in bad publicity, not a demonstration British ruthlessness.Magruda: Dumbass, the teabaggers have been co-opted by folks like the Kock brothers. They are/were aregueing for things that make rich people richer. You only get the blugeon when you go against the status quo

No. You get the bludgeon when you block streets without a permit, when you unilaterally "occupy" land, when you encircle cops and actively resist them from moving prisoners, etc.

I am far more sympathetic to the goals of OWS


You are taking a side here, the cops say one thing the protesters say another and you believe the cops. Not to mention video evidence that supports the protesters. When you look at history it's hard not to believe the protesters.
 
2012-08-27 07:38:03 AM