Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 01:32
VIEWED: 23329
PAGE 11 of 28
Modern sensibilities tend to be even more restricting then that. We don’t live in a world where all you need for whatever life you were likely to lead is a strong back anymore. Today a good deal of college or even graduate school is needed for a good life and women, who once had only one option, today have all the same options men do. I think I read somewhere that the average age marriage in the US is 27.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I got married when I was 17 years old and my wife was 18. Looking back, I guess I could have had her arrested instead of marrying her. I think Rue is right that the age of mental maturity is around 25 years old. I had no business being a husband and father at the age of 18. Most say I still haven't reached mental maturity. For me it has worked out great, but I can't imagine how looking back how.
I think I started noticing girls pretty late for most boys, but by 16 I thought girls were pretty nice. I understand what Finn is saying, just because I turned 18 did'nt make me automatically no longer attracted to 16 year old girls. Of course now anyone under 25 looks like a 16 year old to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
For distinction between puberty, adulthood and marriage made across cultures, see here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2798730
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's all well and good folks - but it does not address the issue of how to lawfully deal with that problem within the rules that the authorities MUST obey in exchange for their legitimacy.
Because without that legitimacy, they're just another gang with thugs and guns.
It also does not address that in this case parental rights have been terminated not only without evidence of a crime, but without even the accusation of one, simply on the basis of religion and guilt by association.
(Emphasis added, once again)
That being said, you wanna see WHERE a large problem with any kind of enforcement comes from ?
This is a direct clip of the FBI rep (who's boss, although present, *refused* to testify) being grilled for.. cutting personnel, skimming off funds to a fraud complaint office, being unable/unwilling to address more than 2% of confirmed complaints, as well as admitting they have nowhere near the total budget claimed by their press releases.
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1267554613&channel=823449575&
lineup=-1
The ambivalence and apathy of the FBI in regards to this program is damn near legendary amongst anyone involved in this entire issue.
Then there is the USDOJ March Audit.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0818/final.pdf
This is a 3.28MB PDF wherein it's noted that the FBI quite clearly did not follow through, reporting sites and hosts "shut down" from the moment they issued a subpeano, and at no time actually followed up and attempted any enforcement beyond that, while also indicating their IC3 dept (referenced above) simply writes a referral for local offices and enforcement agencies with no followup whatsoever.
USDOJ is currently pretty pissed off, as they have been handed a zero-enforcement shell game by the FBI with no way of knowing whether or not any of those cases have ever actually been investigated whatsoever.
This was a critical factor in the overkill response, understandable but unacceptable, since it violated policy, established procedure, and the law itself.
(not to mention both the FBI and USDOJ's use of force guidelines)
Normally I wouldn't share such details, but obviously some folk wanna do something about it, well, if you want it in the hands of Government Authorities, how about stepping up and having a chat with your legislators about making them actually do the job - and cutting them enough budget and personnel to do more than just put on a pretty show.
If y'all wanna get serious about stuff like this, I can show you how and where, but you gotta be willing to put your money, and your neck, on the line for it, cause you'd be pushing folks who can push back pretty hard, and have little respect for the regs and rules.
And instilling that respect by whatever means it takes should be your FIRST priority, else you'll be creating a monster that will turn on you, and damned quickly.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quick update, apparently some of the children in question may be legally Canadian, and thus the Canadian AG Wally Oppal has been advised.
General reaction to the idea of those kids being fed into the Texas Foster Care System...
"Like hell.."
They have their own issues with a community in B.C. from what I have been told, and I have no doubt their influence is quite limited, but an informational packet on the known dangers of the Texas Foster Care System is en route to them at this time.
Currently taking the whole underage pregnant girls tale with the same grain of salt wisely taken on the supposed caller - given the lies and distortions fed to us by the media, although the possibility is acknowledged, we'd like solid evidence of both pregnancy and age, and in THOSE cases action may be warranted, but how to do so when all of the evidence obtained was via an illegal search in the first place ?
Here's a chance for Hero to offer his two cents when it's actually wanted for once - under Texas law, what gets thrown out and what sticks, by the book ?
-F
Here's a copy of the affadavits for the warrant(s)
http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/FLDSaffidavit.pdf
Which have subsequently been proven to be based on false information and are thus, not valid.
And now the State is saying "Oh well, that doesn't matter" - and refusing to even bother verifying the initial claims.
(Which hints to me that they DID know they were false at the time.)
Tell me folks, how would YOU like to be the victim of such a fishing expedition, hmm ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If a caller claims to police she is being raped or sexually abused I think police have the duty to investigate. Once there, the presence of so may pregnant underage girls (some as young as 13) is prima facie evidence of statutory rape on a broad scale and of an unsafe environment for all underage girls.
It's kind'a like a police stop for erratic driving. Once they smell the booze and mj they have the right to search for evidence of this other violation of the law they now perceive.
That makes me think the caller knew that once police were in the door they'd see enough to investigate further. Good for her in getting them in the door.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sure, but what if there WAS no erratic driving and the officer LIED about it ?
And then LIED some more ?
(See Also: Brent Darrow, turn signal)
And then busted you for resisting arrest when you made an issue of it ?
Should the resisting arrest bust hold, given that it was obtained via criminal conduct in the first place ?
I mean, tell me, who are the good guys here, cause I ain't seein it...
-F
(You'll note I do not deny FLDS guilt, simply stating that the State has conducted themselves in a fashion every bit as criminal.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Good for her in getting them in the door.
What the fuck ?
HOW DARE YOU.
Fine, then good on those folks waterboarding those perps down at Gitmo, cause they'll find something.
Maybe you should re-think what the hell you just said, given how often you have argued against it, little miss hypocrite.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Sure, but what if there WAS no erratic driving and the officer LIED about it ?" So are you now saying there was NO call ? Or is what happened simply that some concerned (and well informed) citizen made a phony claim (for which she will legally be held liable, if they can prove it) and the rest, as they say, is history.
And, what do you think the police should do when they get these types of phone calls ? If your neighbor calls 911 to say your house is on fire, do you want the FD to sit on it a bit to be on the safe side ? If you wife calls 911 to report someone in the house do you want the police to wait for a second caller, just to confirm ?
***************************************************************
"then good on those folks waterboarding those perps down at Gitmo, cause they'll find something."
Are you saying the police are manufacturing underage pregnant girls ? Now you're just being ridiculous.
And BTW I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. I don't see any torture going on, do you ? Is this happening in secret ? Are there not lawyers in involved ? Are there not open hearings ?
You know, your position seems to be a lot like CTS, SergeantX and some others. If we close our eyes really tightly and plug our ears and hum, and tell families and groups that they can do whatever they want with children as long as it doesn't come to our attention then we can say isn't going on. Child abuse problem solved. Right ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am sayin they very likely knew that call was fake when they entered into evidence in the first place.
Take that strawman out back and burn it, and for once, just for fucking ONCE - instead of cooking up some bullshit position and duct taping over me listen to what the hell I am saying here.
The State *had* the ability to do this by the book, I am keenly aware of this fact, as much as I am keenly aware they did not do so.
(See Also: Two pre-existing cases)
Although only conjecture, had they done it by the book, there would have been no excuse to simply strip every parent on site of their kids, which I also do very much suspect was the intent of the State to begin with.
The State's authority, that which we give it, rests entirely on their ability to obey a set of rules, laws and regulations in place specifically to prevent it from becoming just "rule of the gun".
To allow them to disregard those rules removes that authority and reduces it to exactly that.
I've never once disputed FLDS guilt in the matter, but the guilt of any particular parent should be the deciding factor in whether to process a case or not, rather than their belief.
Go back and read the bold, highlighted, underlined bits again, and again, and again, till you maybe get it - would you have them simply remove the children of every Catholic simply because some of them were abusers ?
Without a trial, or even an accusation ?
Cause that is what is happening here.
And now you outright advocate using phony evidence to secure illegal warrants on the assumption of guilt ?
And then when I call you on it, have the GALL to disregard my position as expressed, repeatedly, undeniably, indisputably all over the course of this thread and try to tell me I condone the fucking abuse when my primary concern is that these poor closeted souls are about to be shovelled into a system far more hostile than anything they might have been removed from ?
Not ONCE has anyone truly addressed the issues I have raised - one of which is whether this is truly an improvement on the childrens lot given that they are statistically MORE likely to be abused in the system they are being dumped into, than the one they were taken from.
Frankly, I detect a great deal of bias here, in that you really don't give a shit what happens to them kids, long as they were removed from people who you did not agree with - the very same way pro-lifers don't seem to give a rats ass about a kid the moment it pops out, well, you may not, but I do.
So you're telling me it's not ok to break the rules, spit on the law and use the rule of the gun to go after "terrorists" but it's all ok to do so going after "predators" ?
You cannot have it both ways - either you throw the law in the shitcan and admit this is rule of the gun, or you hold the authorities to the law regardless of the crime in question.
I know damn well where the grey area is, given that it's MY area of operations, and the State does not belong there - by condoning this, you are opening the door to have these very tactics someday used against YOU.
Maybe you're ok with that, but what about all the other folk who you have just hung out to dry ?
Do you not also realize that by advocating warrants based on phony claims, and militaristic tactics in serving them - that you have just in effect declared support of everything that happened at Waco, up to and including the deaths ?
I had thought people had learned a lesson from that, but I guess I was wrong.
This is why I hold the political stance I do, because Right, Left or Center, you're all so very quick to advocate violating the rights of anyone who disagrees with you that in my eyes, you're all the same.
Guilty or not, the folks at FLDS deserve a fair trial, and a fair hearing, and many of those parents are never going to recieve either one at all, much less a fair one.
And to be ok with that is as revolting a thing as I have ever seen on this board ever, which is saying quite a lot.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not lea
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME