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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7847277


(New York Daily News)   "And whosoever giveth unto his wife oral pleasure, he shall be as a child molester." - Cuccinelli 3:16   (nydailynews.com) divider line 159
    More: Sick, Cuccinelli, Governor of Virginia, GOP, sodomy laws, Terry McAuliffe, U.S. Court of Appeals, federal courts  
•       •       •

2536 clicks; Favorite

159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-24 11:24:45 AM

Karac: The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public,"

Also knows as existing, legal Virginia codes

18.2-63. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age (sodomy committed against minors aged 13 to 15)
18.2-64.1. Carnal knowledge of certain minors (sodomy committed against minors older than 15
18.2-67.1 Forcible Sodomy (against non-consenting adults)

I couldn't find the exact statutes for sodomy with minors younger than 13 or in public, but I hope to hell Virginia covers those under general child abuse and public decency statutes.

Which pretty much means that Cuccinelli's law is not only unconstitutional, but also redundant, and totally unnecessary for any purposes OTHER than to advance an agenda of homophobic bigotry or to drum up votes from people who consider consensual sex between adults to be 'icky'.


No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.
 
2013-07-24 11:26:08 AM

shastacola: They're all about jobs,jobs,jobs. Those republicans are job creation' maniacs and this proves it! Well, this and the hundreds of anti choice ,anti women laws they've been obsessed with,it's all really about the economy and jobs.


Yes, but the jobs they're seemingly interested in are of the "blow" "hand" and "rim" variety.
 
2013-07-24 11:28:17 AM

alizeran: Serious Black: alizeran: [img845.imageshack.us image 631x423]

Is that his daughter on the left?

/I'd commit a crime against nature with her
//IYKWIM

Would explain his irrational zealousness.


...I don't think his daughter is Sasha Grey...
 
2013-07-24 11:28:58 AM

Aristocles: No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.


I thought republicans were against redundant laws? Aren't we supposed to judge them by the number of extra laws the repeal?
 
2013-07-24 11:29:38 AM
"Give us broad powers to put anyone in jail so we can put bad people in jail. We never would use the law inappropriately."

Uh, no.  How many remember when Patriot Act I was passed and some routine criminals were charged with terrorism (threatened to burn someones house down after a fight, IIRC).  The Prosecutors said, essentially, "Don't give us this tool if you don't want us to use it any way we can."
 
2013-07-24 11:31:29 AM

Aristocles: I live in VA, I'll vote for coochie and I'll do what I please in the bedroom.


Wow. The GOP really can come right out and say they want to make oral sex illegal and still get votes. Even from people who acknowledge that's what they're doing. Amazing. farking amazing.
 
2013-07-24 11:31:34 AM

Felgraf: Aristocles: No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.

I thought republicans were against redundant laws? Aren't we supposed to judge them by the number of extra laws the repeal?


I don't know about all that. All I know is child molestation is repugnant and we should take steps to prevent it from happening.
 
2013-07-24 11:32:11 AM

Zik-Zak: alizeran: Serious Black: alizeran: [img845.imageshack.us image 631x423]

Is that his daughter on the left?

/I'd commit a crime against nature with her
//IYKWIM

Would explain his irrational zealousness.

...I don't think his daughter is Sasha Grey...


Yeah, me either. I was just imagining a video game where political sex positive porn stars combat political fundie mouth-breathers in an arena. Like tekken, but with temptation and nudity vs repression and bible thumping.

FINISH HIM!
 
2013-07-24 11:34:09 AM

Aristocles: I don't know about all that. All I know is child molestation is repugnant and we should take steps to prevent it from happening.


I bet some child molesters use guns to protect themselves, you know. Or to kidnap kids.

We should probably outlaw owning guns. But we'll REALLY only charge child molesters with this law! Promise! That means you'd be okay with it, right?
 
2013-07-24 11:36:17 AM
In 20 years the dominant religion will be the New Reformed Muslo-Christian Calliphatechurch.
 
2013-07-24 11:37:00 AM

Felgraf: Aristocles: I don't know about all that. All I know is child molestation is repugnant and we should take steps to prevent it from happening.

I bet some child molesters use guns to protect themselves, you know. Or to kidnap kids.

We should probably outlaw owning guns. But we'll REALLY only charge child molesters with this law! Promise! That means you'd be okay with it, right?


A law that makes it illegal for a child molester to own a gun? Hmmm... that's not a bad idea, I'm okay with that.
 
2013-07-24 11:37:25 AM

Aristocles: The website to which the link refers says that:

The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not - and cannot be - used against consenting adults acting in private

Of course, I'd like to see where he's getting the "cannot be - used against consenting adults" part from. But, if it can, there's no real gripe here, right?


I'm no lawyer, but to me that reads like "This law  technically makes performing oral sex on your wife illegal, but we won't  apply it that way we swear".

Which means I give it about 6 months before someone comes home to a cheating spouse giving oral and tries to have them charged.
 
2013-07-24 11:37:41 AM

Aristocles: The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not - and cannot be - used against consenting adults acting in private

Of course, I'd like to see where he's getting the "cannot be - used against consenting adults" part from. But, if it can, there's no real gripe here, right?


In 2003, in  Lawrence v. Texas the USSC ruled that anti-sodomy laws criminalizing consensual acts between adults were unconstitutional.  Anti-sodomy laws regarding minors were still legal.  Hence Cuccinelli's statement that it can't be used against consenting adults.

A bit later, a guy was convicted in Virginia of asking a 17 year old girl for a blowjob.  He appealed, arguing that the entire law was invalidated under Lawrence, due to the way it was worded.  The Virginia Supreme Court eventually agreed with him, tossing the entire crimes against nature law out.

However, Cuccinelli is now appealing that decision, trying to get the entire thing - adults and minors clauses - put back on the books.  Instead of asking the Virginia legislator to just write a new law saying you can't have oral or anal sex with minors (actually, that's redundant, since as I've posted, those laws already exist).  I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.
 
2013-07-24 11:39:06 AM

Sarsin: Aristocles: The website to which the link refers says that:

The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not - and cannot be - used against consenting adults acting in private

Of course, I'd like to see where he's getting the "cannot be - used against consenting adults" part from. But, if it can, there's no real gripe here, right?

I'm no lawyer, but to me that reads like "This law  technically makes performing oral sex on your wife illegal, but we won't  apply it that way we swear".

Which means I give it about 6 months before someone comes home to a cheating spouse giving oral and tries to have them charged.


How can you charge a dead man?
 
2013-07-24 11:39:30 AM
My g/f actually enjoys doing rude things to my bits.

Ken Cuchenilli would have criminal charges including jail time brought against her if she did such things.

I don't like Ken Cuchenelli. This is not a complicated moral issue.
 
2013-07-24 11:40:03 AM

Aristocles: A law that makes it illegal for a child molester to own a gun? Hmmm... that's not a bad idea, I'm okay with that.


No no no, the LAW would state it's illegal for anyone to own a gun, but we'd only CHARGE child molesters with it. you can totally trust the prosecutors to do that, right?
 
2013-07-24 11:40:57 AM

Aristocles: Karac: The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public,"

Also knows as existing, legal Virginia codes

18.2-63. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age (sodomy committed against minors aged 13 to 15)
18.2-64.1. Carnal knowledge of certain minors (sodomy committed against minors older than 15
18.2-67.1 Forcible Sodomy (against non-consenting adults)

I couldn't find the exact statutes for sodomy with minors younger than 13 or in public, but I hope to hell Virginia covers those under general child abuse and public decency statutes.

Which pretty much means that Cuccinelli's law is not only unconstitutional, but also redundant, and totally unnecessary for any purposes OTHER than to advance an agenda of homophobic bigotry or to drum up votes from people who consider consensual sex between adults to be 'icky'.

No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.


Then my question is this: why were those child molesters charged under an anti-sodomy law instead of ... oh, I don't know - CHILD MOLESTATION LAWS?
Seriously, you think that the only charge someone in that case would have been convicted of was the sodomy?  That that's the only conviction that landed them on a sex offender registry - and that that's the only thing keeping them there?
 
2013-07-24 11:41:30 AM

Aristocles: How can you charge a dead man?


"Officer I saw and illegal activity in progress and confronted the perpetrator. The male approached me with hostile intent and I stood my ground. It's all perfectly legal."
 
2013-07-24 11:41:36 AM

Karac: I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.


This seems like paranoia... but this is the politics tab...
 
2013-07-24 11:42:26 AM
Aristocles: No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.

Why are conservative shills such gullible fools when the bill of goods suits their narrative?

If you really think that's how crime and punishment works, answer this: when pot is legalized, will the prison doors be flung open and all those poor bastards waiting out their possession convictions be freed and their records purged?

You're being had, you silly man, and you're going along with it willingly.
 
2013-07-24 11:43:38 AM
So he thinks, like most of these closeted gay Republicans, that making the cawk and teh buttsecks illegal, he'll stop wanting it so desperately? Feh.
 
2013-07-24 11:43:48 AM

Felgraf: Aristocles: A law that makes it illegal for a child molester to own a gun? Hmmm... that's not a bad idea, I'm okay with that.

No no no, the LAW would state it's illegal for anyone to own a gun, but we'd only CHARGE child molesters with it. you can totally trust the prosecutors to do that, right?


eh.... no.
 
2013-07-24 11:44:02 AM

Aristocles: This seems like paranoia... but this is the politics tab...


Given that the man tried to investigate and charge a scientist with fraud because the scientist released data Cuccinelli didn't like?

I'd argue paranoia like that is PROBABLY JUSTIFIED.
 
2013-07-24 11:44:16 AM
So Virginia isn't for lovers anymore?
 
2013-07-24 11:45:14 AM

Aristocles: Well, whatever. You're way more enthusiastic about this than I am. I live in VA, I'll vote for coochie and I'll do what I please in the bedroom.

/not worried
//law is gonna keep sex offenders on watch list, so that is good


Okay, I admit it, you hooked me this thread. Four-day-old username, above average punctuation and capitalization, just enough mindlessness to vex me... very good. Much more subtle than most. Good show.
 
2013-07-24 11:47:36 AM

onzmadi: So Virginia isn't for lovers anymore?


The new slogan is "Virginia is for sex in the missionary position solely for the purpose of procreation."
 
2013-07-24 11:47:43 AM
Aristocles

Felgraf: Aristocles: A law that makes it illegal for a child molester to own a gun? Hmmm... that's not a bad idea, I'm okay with that.

No no no, the LAW would state it's illegal for anyone to own a gun, but we'd only CHARGE child molesters with it. you can totally trust the prosecutors to do that, right?

eh.... no.


Yah. Selective application of the law is usually a BAD idea.
 
2013-07-24 11:47:47 AM

Diogenes: This is bad news...for Teabaggers.


winrar
 
2013-07-24 11:48:16 AM
Mrs. Oafmeel made it clear that if I vote for The Cooch, it's going to be a long, joyless marriage.
 
2013-07-24 11:48:22 AM

Aristocles: eh.... no.


Kay.

So why do you trust them like that on *this* law?
 
2013-07-24 11:49:24 AM

Aristocles: Karac: I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.

This seems like paranoia... but this is the politics tab...


Politician says X.
I say he's most likely lying.

That ain't paranoia, that' experience.
And even if it was, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't actually out to get you.  Someone like a guy who pinky-swears a law won't be used exactly the way it's written.
 
2013-07-24 11:54:48 AM

Karac: Aristocles: Karac: I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.

This seems like paranoia... but this is the politics tab...

Politician says X.
I say he's most likely lying.

That ain't paranoia, that' experience.
And even if it was, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't actually out to get you.  Someone like a guy who pinky-swears a law won't be used exactly the way it's written.


This can be said about every law, no?

Glad to meet you, my fellow Libertarian!
 
2013-07-24 11:56:11 AM

Aristocles: Glad to meet you, my fellow Libertarian!


Libertarian who is okay with all non-coital sex being banned in his state. You can stop now.
 
2013-07-24 11:57:09 AM

Aristocles: Glad to meet you, my fellow Libertarian!


You're a pretty sad Libertarian if you'll vote for someone who wants to legislate sexual activity.
 
2013-07-24 11:57:35 AM

Deucednuisance: Aristocles: No, because the child molesters who are originally charged under the anti-sodomy laws will be removed from the sex offender registry.

Why are conservative shills such gullible fools when the bill of goods suits their narrative?

If you really think that's how crime and punishment works, answer this: when pot is legalized, will the prison doors be flung open and all those poor bastards waiting out their possession convictions be freed and their records purged?

You're being had, you silly man, and you're going along with it willingly.


I didn't know you could be jailed for merely smoking pot. Besides, when pot is legalized, we're still not gonna be allowed to sell it without giving uncle Sam a slice of the pie.
 
2013-07-24 12:00:31 PM

Aristocles: I didn't know you could be jailed for merely smoking pot.


Fark needs a "Goddamned idiot' button next to smart and funny.
 
2013-07-24 12:00:58 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: So if it's only illegal to have sex with a "brute animal," does that mean it's okay to have sex with a more cultured and refined animal? Wildebeest are off the table, but maybe if your parakeet has a great sense of humor it's fine to get carnal?


If your pig is like Arnold it's fine to get carnal
 
2013-07-24 12:02:16 PM

Bloody William: Aristocles: Glad to meet you, my fellow Libertarian!

Libertarian who is okay with all non-coital sex being banned in his state. You can stop now.


static.rcgroups.net

/okay, I'm out
//hands off of my bjs
 
2013-07-24 12:02:21 PM
img835.imageshack.us

Does not approve
 
2013-07-24 12:05:39 PM
Here's the question: How bad of a candidate do you have to be when Terry McAulffie looks more saner than you in comparison?
 
2013-07-24 12:07:37 PM
Snapper Carr:

img835.imageshack.us

Does not approve


Had I a nickle for every time I heard the "Oral Pleasures?" line...

Well, I'd have many nickles.
 
2013-07-24 12:14:08 PM

Felgraf: Felgraf: threedingers: If the law will only be applied to "sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public" then why not amend the law so it only applies to "sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public"?

Is there something I'm missing here?

I suspect you are missing the fact that he's lying through his teeth.

/Okay I know you're not really missing that fact.

Sorry that sounded angrier/snarkier than intended.


No worries. I didn't read it as snark.
 
2013-07-24 12:14:13 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/ken-cuccinelli-homosexuality_ n_3629344.html

I am building my entire campaign about the ghey.

I will make an entire website about the ghey child predators. http://www.vachildpredators.com/

But this has nothing to do with me. I'm just concerned.
juuuust asking questions.
 
2013-07-24 12:15:16 PM

Karac: Aristocles: The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not - and cannot be - used against consenting adults acting in private

Of course, I'd like to see where he's getting the "cannot be - used against consenting adults" part from. But, if it can, there's no real gripe here, right?

In 2003, in  Lawrence v. Texas the USSC ruled that anti-sodomy laws criminalizing consensual acts between adults were unconstitutional.  Anti-sodomy laws regarding minors were still legal.  Hence Cuccinelli's statement that it can't be used against consenting adults.

A bit later, a guy was convicted in Virginia of asking a 17 year old girl for a blowjob.  He appealed, arguing that the entire law was invalidated under Lawrence, due to the way it was worded.  The Virginia Supreme Court eventually agreed with him, tossing the entire crimes against nature law out.

However, Cuccinelli is now appealing that decision, trying to get the entire thing - adults and minors clauses - put back on the books.  Instead of asking the Virginia legislator to just write a new law saying you can't have oral or anal sex with minors (actually, that's redundant, since as I've posted, those laws already exist).  I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.


2013-07-20 02:15:46

Keep that in mind as you respond with intelligent, well-crafted arguments.
 
2013-07-24 12:18:41 PM

born_yesterday: Karac: Aristocles: The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not - and cannot be - used against consenting adults acting in private

Of course, I'd like to see where he's getting the "cannot be - used against consenting adults" part from. But, if it can, there's no real gripe here, right?

In 2003, in  Lawrence v. Texas the USSC ruled that anti-sodomy laws criminalizing consensual acts between adults were unconstitutional.  Anti-sodomy laws regarding minors were still legal.  Hence Cuccinelli's statement that it can't be used against consenting adults.

A bit later, a guy was convicted in Virginia of asking a 17 year old girl for a blowjob.  He appealed, arguing that the entire law was invalidated under Lawrence, due to the way it was worded.  The Virginia Supreme Court eventually agreed with him, tossing the entire crimes against nature law out.

However, Cuccinelli is now appealing that decision, trying to get the entire thing - adults and minors clauses - put back on the books.  Instead of asking the Virginia legislator to just write a new law saying you can't have oral or anal sex with minors (actually, that's redundant, since as I've posted, those laws already exist).  I for one, see no reason to believe that Ken won't eventually appeal the consenting adults section so he can arrest people for it, or just arrest someone under it even though it's unconstitutional.

2013-07-20 02:15:46

Keep that in mind as you respond with intelligent, well-crafted arguments.


I know! Someone yesterday told me that my account was too new for me to post, so I agreed to just herp and derp around for a few months.
 
2013-07-24 12:23:41 PM

Felgraf: ArkPanda: That's still pretty damn scary though. An AG can do a lot of damage.

Oh believe me, he already has. From trying to charge/investigate a Virginian scientist for publishing climate change data, to BLOCKING colleges from listing homosexuals as a protected class.

The thought of this man getting the governorship farking TERRIFIES me.


Um, no. I hate Cuccinelli as much as the next guy, but he doesn't have the power to force colleges to change their discrimination clause, he can only tell them that the state no longer recognizes sexual orientation as a protected class so they should consider changing their Protection Clauses (I would know, I was in a VA University when this happened).  All this idiot did was send out a letter to every VA University asking them to change the clause to exclude homosexuals because "Jesus... and furthermore.... blah blah blah." There was a huge stink about it (rightfully so) and the campus LGBT Rights club, along with our SGA, drafted up a big FARK YOU letter and sent it right back to his office. The state of VA may no longer recognize sexual orientation as a protected class but most of our Universities had the balls to stick to their guns and kept their discrimination clauses the same since traditionally such matters have been left up to the colleges to arbitrate. The only thing the AG can technically do about it is sue each and every school that refused to change the clause, and even then McDonnell wont support the action. He has gone on the record many times saying he will not foster a atmosphere of discrimination and hate in VA, but he doesn't, you know, actually care enough to do something about it and reinstate sexual orientation as a protected class. They are all just posturing idiots. Cuccinelli didn't do a damn thing.

/end rant
//Cuccinelli can suck a dick... oh wait
///slashies in 3's!!
 
2013-07-24 12:27:32 PM

FirstNationalBastard: McAuliffe 3:16 is going to whip his ass.


This is the fun part about the GOP's decent into derpland:  In their echo chamber, they think it's a Christian America and thus, they can say whatever they want because "duh bebe jezus sed so in da bible".

Then reality comes along (read: Election Night 2012), b*tchslaps them silly with a studded glove and leaves them on the ground with their face all bloodied and they're wondering what they did to deserve that.
 
2013-07-24 12:31:27 PM
i232.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-24 12:35:07 PM
I could understand if Cucchinelli was in fact predated upon by someone. It's obvious he has some issues for *some* reason.

Rape of *any* sort is horrific, and shouldn't happen to anyone.

I could understand someone going in to politics with the idea that "Yeah, I'm going to do my best to prevent that." Noble purpose, and more power to you.

But proposing laws to bring criminal charges against consenting adult couples doing something they might enjoy... Let me reiterate... Criminal charges. No. I enjoy kissing and licking my girl because it makes her happy.
 
2013-07-24 12:36:39 PM

Krymson Tyde:


Username + thread content = LOL
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report