| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2007 05:46:32 PM |
| Object: |
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will
even brag about it in mass media.
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't
determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help
from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care. The hardness of their hearts
towards the victim is not only apparent in their actions, but the
mockery of their words adds insult to injury.
Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal
alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on
31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark
this summer.
It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties
Union.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New
York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very
minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in
the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department
stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie
boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in
Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient
viewing of your wife, fianc=E9, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a
space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in
- then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse
you can take in response.
As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's
lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.
This is why one lone city councilman is desperately attempting to
change the law.
Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district
office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a
bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under
the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve
had a thing for looking up women's skirts and he found it amusing to
calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep. Vallone's
own staffers even complained as the place the man like to do his
viewing from was literally steps from the councilman's front door.
Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was
breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact
the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior.
As the New York Times put it:
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person's "sexual or other
intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the
purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the
purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."
Pretty straight forward right?
Not according to liberals.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU)
issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation,
"creepy lawmaking."
Liberal radio talk show host Ron Kuby mocked Vallone for drafting the
legislation. Kuby is also a slip-and-fall/criminal defense attorney.
With great bravado Kuby bullied the councilman in the few minutes they
had on-air together, and then went on to brag about all the money he
would win from clients for the misapplication he potentially sees from
such a law being passed.
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU's executive director (and reportedly a
female) added her own sentiments saying, "The problem with this
legislation is that it's trying to get at this amorphous, vague
behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill
reflects how vague the activity that they're trying to get at is, and
the problem is that it's an invitation to abuse, to selective
enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police
officer." Adding, "What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore
unlawful, who's to say?"
Well Donna, any woman who's ever been the slightest bit attractive
could tell you.
They get degrading looks, mental undressings, and even unwanted
physical contact from creeps in society daily.
It's only "imprecise" if no one desires justice or decency for the
privacy of women and children. And it is impossible for it to be an
invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward, and would
perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New
Jersey.)
So while liberals pledge to get rich while killing this bill, and
labeling it "creepy lawmaking," they have given us a supreme glimpse -
a window to their soul if you will...
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to
peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/
executioners.
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own
girlfriend, fianc=E9, wife, mother, or daughters.
And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for
them.
So which is more "creepy" - banning the perverts or defending them?
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such
questions?
.
|
|
| User: "Kommienezuspadt" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 05:59:46 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will
even brag about it in mass media.
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't
determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help
from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care. The hardness of their hearts
towards the victim is not only apparent in their actions, but the
mockery of their words adds insult to injury.
Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal
alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on
31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark
this summer.
It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties
Union.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New
York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very
minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in
the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department
stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie
boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in
Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient
viewing of your wife, fiancé, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a
space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in
- then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse
you can take in response.
As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's
lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.
This is why one lone city councilman is desperately attempting to
change the law.
Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district
office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a
bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under
the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve
had a thing for looking up women's skirts and he found it amusing to
calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep. Vallone's
own staffers even complained as the place the man like to do his
viewing from was literally steps from the councilman's front door.
Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was
breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact
the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior.
As the New York Times put it:
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person's "sexual or other
intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the
purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the
purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."
Pretty straight forward right?
Not according to liberals.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU)
issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation,
"creepy lawmaking."
Liberal radio talk show host Ron Kuby mocked Vallone for drafting the
legislation. Kuby is also a slip-and-fall/criminal defense attorney.
With great bravado Kuby bullied the councilman in the few minutes they
had on-air together, and then went on to brag about all the money he
would win from clients for the misapplication he potentially sees from
such a law being passed.
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU's executive director (and reportedly a
female) added her own sentiments saying, "The problem with this
legislation is that it's trying to get at this amorphous, vague
behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill
reflects how vague the activity that they're trying to get at is, and
the problem is that it's an invitation to abuse, to selective
enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police
officer." Adding, "What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore
unlawful, who's to say?"
Well Donna, any woman who's ever been the slightest bit attractive
could tell you.
They get degrading looks, mental undressings, and even unwanted
physical contact from creeps in society daily.
It's only "imprecise" if no one desires justice or decency for the
privacy of women and children. And it is impossible for it to be an
invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward, and would
perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New
Jersey.)
So while liberals pledge to get rich while killing this bill, and
labeling it "creepy lawmaking," they have given us a supreme glimpse -
a window to their soul if you will...
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to
peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/
executioners.
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own
girlfriend, fiancé, wife, mother, or daughters.
And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for
them.
So which is more "creepy" - banning the perverts or defending them?
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such
questions?
===
Bad timing dud ----
Sen. Craig --- suck on that.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/GOP_Senator_Larry_Craig_arrested_in_0827.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 02:50:00 AM |
|
|
Republicans and the Catholic Church are Liberals?
Whodathunkit!?!?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 02:51:40 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 3:50?am, wrote:
Republicans and the Catholic Church are Liberals?
Whodathunkit!?!?
Susan
Want to buy one of my original portraits?
I will personally autograph it for you.
Perfect for the living room or even a childs
bedroom!
Send me an email, I'll send details!
Contact me at my business email address:
zmsscorpio@yahoo.com
This one is for sale, only $50.00!! {See below}
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4237/robclarke1ux4.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 03:54:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:50:00 GMT, wrote:
Republicans and the Catholic Church are Liberals?
Compared to Nero or Idi Amin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dh" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
27 Aug 2007 09:30:51 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
We hate to see Republicans land in jail, where they might corrupt the other
prisoners.
I see another Republican Senator has been shown to be a "pervert." If we're
going to stop protecting "perverts," should we start by making an example of
him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
27 Aug 2007 10:22:52 PM |
|
|
"dh" <dh@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
We hate to see Republicans land in jail, where they might corrupt the other
prisoners.
I see another Republican Senator has been shown to be a "pervert." If we're
going to stop protecting "perverts," should we start by making an example of
him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html
Hard to say ... the article states:
According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that
Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was
sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door
with his luggage.
According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig
tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized
"as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd
conduct."
The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with
his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under
the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.
It appears that he was up to something, but on the other hand, the
senator is 62 years old and looks a bit frail. His "lingering" could
have been due to having trouble carting his luggage and being tired.
He might not have known that tapping a foot was some sort of signal (I
didn't know that, but then meeting people in restrooms is not
something I do.) The rest of it sounds worse for him, but he could
have just been struggling with his luggage and was kind of spastic
about it. The article also states that
"Craig's office said he was on vacation in Idaho with his
family, with no public appearances scheduled."
Trying to troll for a quickie doesn't sound very practical if he
had his family in tow.
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bugman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
27 Aug 2007 11:05:10 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"dh" <dh@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
We hate to see Republicans land in jail, where they might corrupt the
other
prisoners.
I see another Republican Senator has been shown to be a "pervert." If
we're
going to stop protecting "perverts," should we start by making an example
of
him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html
Hard to say ... the article states:
According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that
Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was
sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door
with his luggage.
According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig
tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized
"as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd
conduct."
The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with
his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under
the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.
It appears that he was up to something, but on the other hand, the
senator is 62 years old and looks a bit frail. His "lingering" could
have been due to having trouble carting his luggage and being tired.
He might not have known that tapping a foot was some sort of signal (I
didn't know that, but then meeting people in restrooms is not
something I do.) The rest of it sounds worse for him, but he could
have just been struggling with his luggage and was kind of spastic
about it. The article also states that
"Craig's office said he was on vacation in Idaho with his
family, with no public appearances scheduled."
Trying to troll for a quickie doesn't sound very practical if he
had his family in tow.
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
I'm laughing about it. Since he was a top guy in Mitt Romney's campaign
team, I bet Mitt is laughing his ***** off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 02:11:28 AM |
|
|
"Bugman" <jmposing@hotmail.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
I'm laughing about it. Since he was a top guy in Mitt Romney's campaign
team, I bet Mitt is laughing his ***** off.
I bet the other Republican candidates are laughing harder than Mitt
Romney is!
To get me to really laugh at it, it would have had to be a lot more
outrageous. Like, they jail him and as he puts on his jail clothes,
they find out he's wearing pink thong underwear. Now, that would
*really* be funny as he tries to explain that he's actially
straight. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 09:07:26 AM |
|
|
On 27 Aug 2007 20:22:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"dh" <dh@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
We hate to see Republicans land in jail, where they might corrupt the other
prisoners.
I see another Republican Senator has been shown to be a "pervert." If we're
going to stop protecting "perverts," should we start by making an example of
him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html
Hard to say ... the article states:
According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that
Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was
sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door
with his luggage.
According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig
tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized
"as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd
conduct."
The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with
his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under
the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.
It appears that he was up to something, but on the other hand, the
senator is 62 years old and looks a bit frail. His "lingering" could
have been due to having trouble carting his luggage and being tired.
He might not have known that tapping a foot was some sort of signal (I
didn't know that, but then meeting people in restrooms is not
something I do.) The rest of it sounds worse for him, but he could
have just been struggling with his luggage and was kind of spastic
about it. The article also states that
"Craig's office said he was on vacation in Idaho with his
family, with no public appearances scheduled."
Trying to troll for a quickie doesn't sound very practical if he
had his family in tow.
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Did you get to the part about his pleading guilty of a misdemeanor?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 11:15:14 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On 27 Aug 2007 20:22:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Did you get to the part about his pleading guilty of a misdemeanor?
Yeah, and he said he decided to pay the $500 rather than bother to
contest it, although he now claims that was a mistake. Given that the
senate is a millionaire's club, $500 probably seemed like small change
to him, and he could easily have been worried about adverse publicity
due to a trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Someone would
most likely use all the news items generated by such a trial as
political weapons in the next election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 12:16:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:15:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <87fy23pr8y.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On 27 Aug 2007 20:22:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Did you get to the part about his pleading guilty of a misdemeanor?
Yeah, and he said he decided to pay the $500 rather than bother to
contest it, although he now claims that was a mistake.
Yeah, somehow in the weeks following his arrest for lewd behavior he
did not think to talk to a lawyer. Do you actually believe that for a
second?
Given that the
senate is a millionaire's club, $500 probably seemed like small change
to him,
Whereas pleading guilty shows him for the hypocrite he is. But it did
prevent the cop from testifying and the trial becoming pubic.
and he could easily have been worried about adverse publicity
due to a trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
You think that admitting the crime gives better publicity? He has
admitted it but now you are willing to say that maybe he was innocent.
Someone would
most likely use all the news items generated by such a trial as
political weapons in the next election.
Since it is substantive and shows that he is a hypocrite I would think
so.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 03:33:07 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:15:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <87fy23pr8y.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On 27 Aug 2007 20:22:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in <877inggx6b.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Did you get to the part about his pleading guilty of a misdemeanor?
Yeah, and he said he decided to pay the $500 rather than bother to
contest it, although he now claims that was a mistake.
Yeah, somehow in the weeks following his arrest for lewd behavior he
did not think to talk to a lawyer. Do you actually believe that for a
second?
He's also a U.S. Senator, who might have figured that quietly pleading
guilty would cause less political damage than the publicity of a trial.
Given that the
senate is a millionaire's club, $500 probably seemed like small change
to him,
Whereas pleading guilty shows him for the hypocrite he is. But it did
prevent the cop from testifying and the trial becoming pubic.
.... which might be less damaging politically than a trial, even if
acquitted. Also, suppose he is closeted and didn't do anything
illegal in this case, but was worried that others he had sex with
would start to talk to reporters. Given his support of homophobic
legislation, any such former sex partners just might treat him like
Ted Haggard was treated, and that could really sink him politically.
and he could easily have been worried about adverse publicity
due to a trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
You think that admitting the crime gives better publicity? He has
admitted it but now you are willing to say that maybe he was innocent.
He now claims he was innocent. One question I'd have is why the
undercover agent arrested him so quickly. He could have let it go a
bit further to the point where they talked about what they might like
to do, which would have provided much more convincing evidence.
Someone would most likely use all the news items generated by such
a trial as political weapons in the next election.
Since it is substantive and shows that he is a hypocrite I would think
so.
.... which complicates an analysis of his decisions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 12:27:09 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
We hate to see Republicans land in jail, where they might corrupt the other
prisoners.
I see another Republican Senator has been shown to be a "pervert." If we're
going to stop protecting "perverts," should we start by making an example of
him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html
Hard to say ... the article states:
According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that
Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was
sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door
with his luggage.
According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig
tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized
"as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd
conduct."
The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with
his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under
the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.
It appears that he was up to something, but on the other hand, the
senator is 62 years old and looks a bit frail. His "lingering" could
have been due to having trouble carting his luggage and being tired.
He might not have known that tapping a foot was some sort of signal (I
didn't know that, but then meeting people in restrooms is not
something I do.) The rest of it sounds worse for him, but he could
have just been struggling with his luggage and was kind of spastic
about it. The article also states that
"Craig's office said he was on vacation in Idaho with his
family, with no public appearances scheduled."
Trying to troll for a quickie doesn't sound very practical if he
had his family in tow.
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
Closeted gay men who have been taught to hate themselves for being
homosexual are not always known for making the most practical choices.
They don't date; they don't join gay jogger's associations. They have
opportunistic sex as quick as they can. (Not all of them, but this is
common.)
Trolling for a quickie isn't "practical" for anyone who is closeted
and married - because they could get caught and lose everything,
regardless of whether their wife is close by geographically at the
time. But according to lawyers who deal with these cases,
approximately 50% of all men who get arrested for sex in public places
are married. (To women, mind you.)
Larry Craig was "outed" a year ago by a blog that said that he was
known for picking up men in restrooms. He denied it then, but doesn't
it make this story appear like a little too much of a coincidence?
Your explanation for why he was tapping his foot and then reaching
with his hand under the other stall is very entertaining, but be
serious.
He told the police that he was reaching for a piece of paper. The
policeman said there was no paper. If he was just having a case of
"elderly tremors" he could have tried that for an excuse.
He tried to get out of it by flashing his Senate ID badge and, when
that didn't work, he PLEAD GUILTY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 02:37:16 AM |
|
|
Anlatt the Builder <tirhuan@aol.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
"Please" about what? Suggesting that the evidence is a little vague?
It is - the officer could have strung the guy along to the point
where he explicitly asked for sex, which would have made it a lot
less ambiguous.
Trolling for a quickie isn't "practical" for anyone who is closeted
and married - because they could get caught and lose everything,
regardless of whether their wife is close by geographically at the
time. But according to lawyers who deal with these cases,
approximately 50% of all men who get arrested for sex in public places
are married. (To women, mind you.)
.... and what fraction have their wives waiting outside said public
place? :-)
Larry Craig was "outed" a year ago by a blog that said that he was
known for picking up men in restrooms. He denied it then, but doesn't
it make this story appear like a little too much of a coincidence?
Your explanation for why he was tapping his foot and then reaching
with his hand under the other stall is very entertaining, but be
serious.
Outed by a random blog? :-) Seriously though, I said it all sounds
suspicious but you should remember that sometimes what sounds
suspicious has an innocent explanation. Also, the CNN article
mentioned that "in 1982, Craig denied rumors that he was under
investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that
lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional
pages, saying the 'false allegations' made him 'mad as hell.'"
Other than that, the CNN article merely mentioned that some blogger
claimed Craig was gay. It also listed him as a favorite among social
conservatives for supporting homophobic legislation, so a lot of gay
guys are probably pissed at him. It wouldn't be surprising if one
blogger somewhere outed him on flimsy evidence.
He told the police that he was reaching for a piece of paper. The
policeman said there was no paper. If he was just having a case of
"elderly tremors" he could have tried that for an excuse.
That one is not in the CNN article either.
Innocent people who suddenly find themselves threatened with arrest
do not always come up with good excuses - the guilty ones are more
likely do that because they've had time to think ahead.
He tried to get out of it by flashing his Senate ID badge and, when
that didn't work, he PLEAD GUILTY.
He said he should have pleaded innocent and more or less that
confessing to something with a $500 fine was not worth the effort (the
U.S. senate is a millionaires' club).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kommienezuspadt" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 06:56:24 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87y7fw85zn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Anlatt the Builder <tirhuan@aol.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
"Please" about what? Suggesting that the evidence is a little vague?
It is - the officer could have strung the guy along to the point
where he explicitly asked for sex, which would have made it a lot
less ambiguous.
http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/senator-larry-craig-whats-with-gay.html
Trolling for a quickie isn't "practical" for anyone who is closeted
and married - because they could get caught and lose everything,
regardless of whether their wife is close by geographically at the
time. But according to lawyers who deal with these cases,
approximately 50% of all men who get arrested for sex in public places
are married. (To women, mind you.)
... and what fraction have their wives waiting outside said public
place? :-)
Larry Craig was "outed" a year ago by a blog that said that he was
known for picking up men in restrooms. He denied it then, but doesn't
it make this story appear like a little too much of a coincidence?
Your explanation for why he was tapping his foot and then reaching
with his hand under the other stall is very entertaining, but be
serious.
Outed by a random blog? :-) Seriously though, I said it all sounds
suspicious but you should remember that sometimes what sounds
suspicious has an innocent explanation. Also, the CNN article
mentioned that "in 1982, Craig denied rumors that he was under
investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that
lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional
pages, saying the 'false allegations' made him 'mad as hell.'"
Other than that, the CNN article merely mentioned that some blogger
claimed Craig was gay. It also listed him as a favorite among social
conservatives for supporting homophobic legislation, so a lot of gay
guys are probably pissed at him. It wouldn't be surprising if one
blogger somewhere outed him on flimsy evidence.
He told the police that he was reaching for a piece of paper. The
policeman said there was no paper. If he was just having a case of
"elderly tremors" he could have tried that for an excuse.
That one is not in the CNN article either.
Innocent people who suddenly find themselves threatened with arrest
do not always come up with good excuses - the guilty ones are more
likely do that because they've had time to think ahead.
He tried to get out of it by flashing his Senate ID badge and, when
that didn't work, he PLEAD GUILTY.
He said he should have pleaded innocent and more or less that
confessing to something with a $500 fine was not worth the effort (the
U.S. senate is a millionaires' club).
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 11:08:01 AM |
|
|
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoSpam@NoThanks.net> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87y7fw85zn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Anlatt the Builder <tirhuan@aol.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
"Please" about what? Suggesting that the evidence is a little vague?
It is - the officer could have strung the guy along to the point
where he explicitly asked for sex, which would have made it a lot
less ambiguous.
http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/senator-larry-craig-whats-with-gay.html
Thanks for the link, which states:
"My goal with this site and my companion site, Proud Of Who We
Are, is to take that message further. To educate not just gays
and lesbians about these homophobes, but to educate the
greater electorate at large. Because of this, I find myself in
the odd position of being one of the few people who seems to
be willing to tell religious conservatives, who don't approve
of people like me, just how many conservative political
leaders are like me."
It is clear (whether we agree with his goals or not) that this is
a highly biased source and that the blogger has an ax to grind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 02:47:01 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 3:37=EF=BF=BDam, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
"Please" about what? Suggesting that the evidence is a little vague?
It is - the officer could have strung the guy along to the point
where he explicitly asked for sex, which would have made it a lot
less ambiguous.
Trolling for a quickie isn't "practical" for anyone who is closeted
and married - because they could get caught and lose everything,
regardless of whether their wife is close by geographically at the
time. But according to lawyers who deal with these cases,
approximately 50% of all men who get arrested for sex in public places
are married. (To women, mind you.)
... and what fraction have their wives waiting outside said public
place? :-)
Larry Craig was "outed" a year ago by a blog that said that he was
known for picking up men in restrooms. He denied it then, but doesn't
it make this story appear like a little too much of a coincidence?
Your explanation for why he was tapping his foot and then reaching
with his hand under the other stall is very entertaining, but be
serious.
Outed by a random blog? :-) Seriously though, I said it all sounds
suspicious but you should remember that sometimes what sounds
suspicious has an innocent explanation. =A0Also, the CNN article
mentioned that "in 1982, Craig denied rumors that he was under
investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that
lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional
pages, saying the 'false allegations' made him 'mad as hell.'"
Other than that, the CNN article merely mentioned that some blogger
claimed Craig was gay. =A0It also listed him as a favorite among social
conservatives for supporting homophobic legislation, so a lot of gay
guys are probably pissed at him. =A0It wouldn't be surprising if one
blogger somewhere outed him on flimsy evidence.
He told the police that he was reaching for a piece of paper. The
policeman said there was no paper. If he was just having a case of
"elderly tremors" he could have tried that for an excuse.
That one is not in the CNN article either.
Innocent people who suddenly find themselves threatened with arrest
do not always come up with good excuses - the guilty ones are more
likely do that because they've had time to think ahead.
He tried to get out of it by flashing his Senate ID badge and, when
that didn't work, he PLEAD GUILTY.
He said he should have pleaded innocent and more or less that
confessing to something with a $500 fine was not worth the effort (the
U.S. senate is a millionaires' club).
Want to buy one of my original portraits?
I will personally autograph it for you.
Perfect for the living room or even a childs
bedroom!
Send me an email, I'll send details!
Contact me at my business email address:
zmsscorpio@yahoo.com
This one is for sale, only $50.00!! {See below}
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4237/robclarke1ux4.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts? To Protect the Ordinary, Decent Criminals from Republican Scum! |
28 Aug 2007 03:11:26 AM |
|
|
On 28 ao=FBt, 09:47, ScottyFLL <ScottyF...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:37?am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:22 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
"dh" <d...@stargate.com> writes:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
So I'd classify it as "sounds suspicious, good for a laugh, but don=
't
bet the farm on it being true".
Oh, please.
"Please" about what? Suggesting that the evidence is a little vague?
It is - the officer could have strung the guy along to the point
where he explicitly asked for sex, which would have made it a lot
less ambiguous.
Trolling for a quickie isn't "practical" for anyone who is closeted
and married - because they could get caught and lose everything,
regardless of whether their wife is close by geographically at the
time. But according to lawyers who deal with these cases,
approximately 50% of all men who get arrested for sex in public places
are married. (To women, mind you.)
... and what fraction have their wives waiting outside said public
place? :-)
Larry Craig was "outed" a year ago by a blog that said that he was
known for picking up men in restrooms. He denied it then, but doesn't
it make this story appear like a little too much of a coincidence?
Your explanation for why he was tapping his foot and then reaching
with his hand under the other stall is very entertaining, but be
serious.
Outed by a random blog? :-) Seriously though, I said it all sounds
suspicious but you should remember that sometimes what sounds
suspicious has an innocent explanation. ?Also, the CNN article
mentioned that "in 1982, Craig denied rumors that he was under
investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that
lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional
pages, saying the 'false allegations' made him 'mad as hell.'"
Other than that, the CNN article merely mentioned that some blogger
claimed Craig was gay. ?It also listed him as a favorite among social
conservatives for supporting homophobic legislation, so a lot of gay
guys are probably pissed at him. ?It wouldn't be surprising if one
blogger somewhere outed him on flimsy evidence.
He told the police that he was reaching for a piece of paper. The
policeman said there was no paper. If he was just having a case of
"elderly tremors" he could have tried that for an excuse.
That one is not in the CNN article either.
Innocent people who suddenly find themselves threatened with arrest
do not always come up with good excuses - the guilty ones are more
likely do that because they've had time to think ahead.
He tried to get out of it by flashing his Senate ID badge and, when
that didn't work, he PLEAD GUILTY.
He said he should have pleaded innocent and more or less that
confessing to something with a $500 fine was not worth the effort (the
U.S. senate is a millionaires' club).
Want to buy one of my original portraits?
I will personally autograph it for you.
Perfect for the living room or even a childs
bedroom!
Send me an email, I'll send details!
Contact me at my business email address:
zmsscor...@yahoo.com
This one is for sale, only $50.00!! {See below}
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4237/robclarke1ux4.jpg-
Trolling on gay discussion groups wasn't enough anymore, homo bob?
Awarding yourself stars wasn't giving you any satisfaction?
Now you have to steal other people's alias?
Get a fucking life, moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 06:32:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1188254792.542179.210420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion
Objection: False dichotomy. Much perversion is quite decent.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 03:09:06 AM |
|
|
On 28 ao=FBt, 00:46, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Hey, don't insult us!!!! No atheist here is protecting Wentzky, the
convicted pervert...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 07:17:06 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 11:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert.
I don't see many liberals running to the aid of Catholic priest
perverts abusing altar boys. Certain other parties, however, have done
their damnedest to protect them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 11:40:32 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 3:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will
even brag about it in mass media.
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't
determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help
from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care. The hardness of their hearts
towards the victim is not only apparent in their actions, but the
mockery of their words adds insult to injury.
Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal
alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on
31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark
this summer.
It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties
Union.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New
York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very
minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in
the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department
stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie
boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in
Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient
viewing of your wife, fianc=E9, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a
space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in
- then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse
you can take in response.
As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's
lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.
This is why one lone city councilman is desperately attempting to
change the law.
Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district
office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a
bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under
the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve
had a thing for looking up women's skirts and he found it amusing to
calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep. Vallone's
own staffers even complained as the place the man like to do his
viewing from was literally steps from the councilman's front door.
Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was
breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact
the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior.
As the New York Times put it:
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person's "sexual or other
intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the
purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the
purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."
Pretty straight forward right?
Not according to liberals.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU)
issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation,
"creepy lawmaking."
Liberal radio talk show host Ron Kuby mocked Vallone for drafting the
legislation. Kuby is also a slip-and-fall/criminal defense attorney.
With great bravado Kuby bullied the councilman in the few minutes they
had on-air together, and then went on to brag about all the money he
would win from clients for the misapplication he potentially sees from
such a law being passed.
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU's executive director (and reportedly a
female) added her own sentiments saying, "The problem with this
legislation is that it's trying to get at this amorphous, vague
behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill
reflects how vague the activity that they're trying to get at is, and
the problem is that it's an invitation to abuse, to selective
enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police
officer." Adding, "What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore
unlawful, who's to say?"
Well Donna, any woman who's ever been the slightest bit attractive
could tell you.
They get degrading looks, mental undressings, and even unwanted
physical contact from creeps in society daily.
It's only "imprecise" if no one desires justice or decency for the
privacy of women and children. And it is impossible for it to be an
invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward, and would
perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New
Jersey.)
So while liberals pledge to get rich while killing this bill, and
labeling it "creepy lawmaking," they have given us a supreme glimpse -
a window to their soul if you will...
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to
peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/
executioners.
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own
girlfriend, fianc=E9, wife, mother, or daughters.
And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for
them.
So which is more "creepy" - banning the perverts or defending them?
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such
questions?
Would this law apply to teens? Hard to enforce. It would end all
beauty pageants, etc. Might end with the closing of public swimming
pools, beaches, etc. Should we require all females to wear burkhas?
Maybe men too, because I have seen females give some long looks to
guys.
I hate to agree with the ACLU, but they're right, the proposed law is
too imprecise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 04:58:48 AM |
|
|
On 28-Aug-2007, wrote:
Would this law apply to teens? Hard to enforce. It would end all
beauty pageants, etc.
Now watch JYoung backpedal....
Susan
Might end with the closing of public swimming
pools, beaches, etc. Should we require all females to wear burkhas?
Maybe men too, because I have seen females give some long looks to
guys.
I hate to agree with the ACLU, but they're right, the proposed law is
too imprecise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Medusa" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 06:59:24 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 5:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
Gee, so all the Catholic bishops protecting priests who molested
children are liberals? News to me.
Medusa
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
31 Aug 2007 02:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 7:59 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
Gee, so all the Catholic bishops protecting priests who molested
children are liberals? News to me.
Medusa
And to the rest of the world.
Nice to meet you, Medusa!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gwenyth Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 10:21:43 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 5:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Why for decades did the Catholic Church, the epitome of extreme
conservatism, protect pedophile priests?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 10:28:37 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 11:21 am, Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Why for decades did the Catholic Church, the epitome of extreme
conservatism, protect pedophile priests?
*Shhhhhh* Do as they say, not as they do...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
29 Aug 2007 10:33:05 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 10:28 am, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:21 am, Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Why for decades did the Catholic Church, the epitome of extreme
conservatism, protect pedophile priests?
*Shhhhhh* Do as they say, not as they do...
<hehehehe>
You have a point there.... ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 06:20:34 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 6:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why
zzzzzzzzzzz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Callisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
27 Aug 2007 05:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 6:46 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will
even brag about it in mass media.
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't
determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help
from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care. The hardness of their hearts
towards the victim is not only apparent in their actions, but the
mockery of their words adds insult to injury.
Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal
alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on
31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark
this summer.
It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties
Union.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New
York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very
minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in
the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department
stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie
boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in
Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient
viewing of your wife, fianc=E9, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a
space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in
- then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse
you can take in response.
As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's
lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.
This is why one lone city councilman is desperately attempting to
change the law.
Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district
office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a
bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under
the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve
had a thing for looking up women's skirts and he found it amusing to
calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep. Vallone's
own staffers even complained as the place the man like to do his
viewing from was literally steps from the councilman's front door.
Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was
breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact
the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior.
As the New York Times put it:
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person's "sexual or other
intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the
purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the
purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."
Pretty straight forward right?
Not according to liberals.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU)
issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation,
"creepy lawmaking."
Liberal radio talk show host Ron Kuby mocked Vallone for drafting the
legislation. Kuby is also a slip-and-fall/criminal defense attorney.
With great bravado Kuby bullied the councilman in the few minutes they
had on-air together, and then went on to brag about all the money he
would win from clients for the misapplication he potentially sees from
such a law being passed.
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU's executive director (and reportedly a
female) added her own sentiments saying, "The problem with this
legislation is that it's trying to get at this amorphous, vague
behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill
reflects how vague the activity that they're trying to get at is, and
the problem is that it's an invitation to abuse, to selective
enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police
officer." Adding, "What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore
unlawful, who's to say?"
Well Donna, any woman who's ever been the slightest bit attractive
could tell you.
They get degrading looks, mental undressings, and even unwanted
physical contact from creeps in society daily.
It's only "imprecise" if no one desires justice or decency for the
privacy of women and children. And it is impossible for it to be an
invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward, and would
perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New
Jersey.)
So while liberals pledge to get rich while killing this bill, and
labeling it "creepy lawmaking," they have given us a supreme glimpse -
a window to their soul if you will...
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to
peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/
executioners.
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own
girlfriend, fianc=E9, wife, mother, or daughters.
And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for
them.
So which is more "creepy" - banning the perverts or defending them?
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such
questions?
I would not be talking about perversion if I were a Republican these
days.
Do you know who your Senator is solicing now????
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zeligg" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
04 Sep 2007 10:04:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:46:32 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing
the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if
protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women
and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that
someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will
come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so
far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of
potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting
females be damned!
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will
even brag about it in mass media.
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't
determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help
from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care.
If they can't distinguish right from wrong, then why WOULD they care?
Do you even read what you post??
The hardness of their hearts
Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal
alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on
31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark
this summer.
Keep in mind, Geraldo is all about the war in Iraq. Since liberals
are always wrong, then he must be wrong about the war, too, eh?
{crickets}
It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties
Union.
Ah yes, the dreaded ACLU, who is currently defending Michael Savage's
rights to free speech. Damn them all to hell!
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New
York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very
minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in
the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department
stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie
boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in
Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient
viewing of your wife, fiancé, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a
space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in
- then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse
you can take in response.
As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's
lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.
It is currently illegal nation-wide to use camera's in dressing rooms.
In most states, it is illegal just to have peep-holes. In the states
where it is legal, the caveat is that it must be done by someone of
the same sex. Shoplifting in the US costs retailers 25 billion each
year, which, in turn, is passed onto the buyers. Do you not think
that shop-owners have a right to protect themselves? Can you offer up
any example where legally installed shop-lifting survelliance is being
regularly abused?
Zeligg
"You are megalomaniac, the worst kind, because you're a monstrous and
perverted idiot."
Oz' love letter to Zeligg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts |
28 Aug 2007 01:06:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:46:32 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886693/posts
Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2007 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:21:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
<snip>
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person's "sexual or other
intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the
purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the
purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."
Pretty straight forward right?
Not at all. You want to legislate what people can *look* at? You can't
be serious.
Not according to liberals.
....nor to anyone else who gives it any thought whatsoever.
<snip inane drivel>
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
