It is listed,. regarding pedophiles..
Posted By: -- on 2009-05-06
In Reply to: I'm all for protecting people but here - Trigger Happy
Pedophilia -
Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You forgot the pedophiles
You're right. I'm from Texas, where we cling to our guns and religion, shoot first, and ask ?s maybe.
O'Reilly did a huge story on the pedophile problem there a few mos. ago with Wendy Murphy. VT is very well known for its lax laws. Check out that story, regardless of what you think of him. It's accurate and just tragic. You'll see how well your elected officials protected those young girls.
Like we say down here, "God Bless Texas!"
If you compare the number of pedophiles in the
general population to the number of pedophiles in the Catholic priest population, you are going to find a rather alarming difference in the percentages.
most pedophiles are found in the nation's
(nm)
Encouraging and empowering kids to turn in pedophiles
Your link is a dead end.
no source listed for this
chart. No footnotes. No data to support numbers. Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded.
also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts. Must use links. Please abide by the rules.
i saw the link listed below
but it is just way over my head.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/pdf/index.htm
mccain, because i think he will (listed):
*keep this country safer from those who would try to bring the USA down.
*he will bring encouragement and respect to (and from) our troops.
*appointment of supreme court judges that will properly interpret the laws instead of try to make them.
*sincerely work with people of all backgrounds and political persuasions to make a better government (with proven history in this regard) AND a less intrusive/smaller government.
*he will more likely bring us quicker out of national deficits and eliminate pork barrel government waste (which is no minor thing).
*he will fight against anything wrong in the government whether it is politically beneficial or not, and do what is right for the people (proven history here too).
*make healthcare more affordable for all.
*encourage small business growth/jobs and make it not so profitable to send our jobs overseas, thereby boosting the economy in a real sustaining fashion.
*for best helping us become energy independent, using ALL our resources while being mindful of the environmental issues as well.
*because he has proven experience in all aspects that his opponent does not, and because he has chosen a more capable vice president, whereas if Biden were in the white house, he might need his tongue tied to keep him from running off at the mouth and saying something he shouldn't re foreign affairs or something; nevermind the probability of Obama himself causing problems with foreign affairs.
These are starters, but if you really do care, it ought to give you some food for thought.
in the first web site you listed it states . .
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
All of these proclivities are not listed in the bill...
as being protected from hate crimes.
However, I think that if there's any chance that some pedophile or prostitute could twist this to use to their advantage, things need to be made very clear exactly who is being protected by this bill. Is it just homosexuals? If so, it needs to say that.
Personally, I think this hate crime bill is crap. If you beat someone up or kill someone, it's a hate crime, no two ways about it. I guess I don't understand why someone should receive more jail time for killing your average lesbian than for killing your average woman. They're both murder, no matter how you look at it.
Wouldn't it be simpler if they listed truths? LOL
ok, it says top match obama 57.14 and then has below McCain listed as 57.14
Whatever, still voting for McCain
Obama got my vote for none of the reasons you listed.
My vote is between myself and the canddiate. He is my voice. On any given subject, I could start a sentence that he can finish the same way I would. This has not happened for me in my entire adult lifetime. I was a few years shy of voting age in 1960. Kennedy was the only other candidate that gave me voice. That is why there is nothing anybody could say to sway me one way or the other and I find it sad that those who would try do not seem be able to understand that I am not the only one who feels this way about supporting this remarkable man.
What's listed here for Iran-Iraq War time
USA (as in us). We already knew about that stuff. In terms of these 2006 links, you might want to try reading up on this subject a little more. There are whole libraries of publications, including exhaustive US govermental studies, that refute your claim and, in fact, WMDs have yet to be found there. Saddam had abandoned this program, but of course, we hung him anyway. This is what we do with uppety puppets that go rogue on us.
Also, did anyone look at the Hardball segment listed on the Conservative board?
It was called "The Truth about Iraqi Freedom," I believe. I THINK it was considered meaningful dialogue supporting the neocons. However, I felt it was damning. The only "Truth" the rather strange and creepy neocon lady reporter seemed to come up with was that the soldiers handed out candy and softballs. The other guest was a former soldier in Iraq who, if only given time, was making some excellent statements regarding the real truth of the war. The whole segment was rushed and, well, kind of weird. As I said, check out the lady reporter - she seemed most disagreeable and offensive. Or maybe it was just my take on it!!!!
|
