08-22-2007, 08:10 PM | #21 | |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
Quote:
|
|
08-22-2007, 08:15 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
|
You are easily beguiled.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. Last edited by RockyBalboa; 08-22-2007 at 08:17 PM. |
08-22-2007, 08:20 PM | #23 | |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
Quote:
NAMBLA's undoing is the fact that its members are despicable and its purpose is horrifying. In the court of public opinion it is roundly and thoroughly routed, in a way that is more thorough and satisfying than if government regulation prevented them from airing their stupidity. Some ideas are so stupid and repulsive that they will hoist themselves on their own pitard immediately upon airing and the ideas underlying NAMBLA are some of them. |
|
08-22-2007, 08:23 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I find it interesting that Liberals are almost never black and white on anything,,,,except for defending purely evil perversions such as NAMBLA and as if the actions of it are somehow expressions of "freedom of speech".
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
08-22-2007, 08:29 PM | #25 | |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
Quote:
|
|
08-22-2007, 08:31 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
The ACLU defends that right. To merely say,,,"they're just defending their right to say they can mount boys" is a cop out in my mind. It's a very shrewd agenda.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
08-22-2007, 08:40 PM | #27 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
there is the instructive case of the guy out in California who takes pictures of kids in public places, and then posts the pictures on the internet. He has a professed "love" for very young girls, but says he has never acted on it.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_6543919 A judge has ruled that he may not go within 30 feet of a child in the state of California. On what basis? I'm not sure. I've listened to interviews of prominent people saying that he should somewhow be locked up or otherwise banned from taking photographs in a public place, etc. I.e. the fear of this man makes them wish to abrogate his rights, even though he has done nothing illegal. Rocky, I'm sure you would be first in line to say this man should be in prison for life. And you would have not a second thought about the implications of that, or whether it would constitutional. |
08-22-2007, 08:45 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
If it came down to your little girl or boy he was doing this too, that he was preying upon....don't tell me for a second you'd think of his Constitutional "rights" first before defending the safety of your own children because you wouldn't. The man is clearly a danger to society.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
08-22-2007, 08:49 PM | #29 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Quote:
There was a case of a man in North Texas being arrested for taking pictures at a community festival. The pictures were thought to be "prurient". Of course his name was plastered all through the papers. Two weeks later the charges were dropped. You don't moonlight as law enforcement in North Texas do you? Those will will tear the constitution to shreds will promise us that they are doing it for own safety and protection, no doubt. |
|
08-22-2007, 08:53 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Don't tell me either if it were your son or daughter this loser in California was stalking that the first thing you'd be doing is wondering how you can protect his "Constitutional Rights", cause you'd be lying.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|