- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The dems (Dick Durban) are now on the record defending light sentences for pedophiles.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:19 pm
Now Coons who allowed Biden to diddle his daughter for his Senate seat is on the record as well.
pure scum.
pure scum.
7
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:20 pm to Rebel
And it’s not even a point of shame.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:27 pm to Rebel
quote:
The dems (Dick Durban) are now on the record defending light sentences for pedophiles.
What did he say?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:28 pm to Rebel
Not a terrible strategy.
She is going to get confirmed, so just make the Dem Senators expose some of their shameful views in the process.
She is going to get confirmed, so just make the Dem Senators expose some of their shameful views in the process.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:30 pm to Rebel
quote:If you email even one porn image of a minor to a friend, you are facing a minimum 5-year sentence.
The dems (Dick Durban) are now on the record defending light sentences for pedophiles
That might even sound reasonable, because the first thing that you think of is pre-pubescent children forced to participate in creating those images by despicable people.
But that mandatory minimum also applies to a 17-year-old subject who lies about her age to get a modeling gig and who you had no reason to know was 17, rather than 20 years of age.
Is it inherently unreasonable to ask whether the same sentence should apply to (i) a guy who shares a single image of a voluntary participant who appears to be an adult and (ii) a sicko who has 20gig of photos depicting the involuntary abuse of 5- and 6-year-olds?
Under current law, same mandatory minimum applies to both.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:34 pm to Kinetic_Response
So, the moral of the story is don’t email porn, right?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:34 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Under current law, same mandatory minimum applies to both.
What law?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:37 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Number of Posts: 18
Registered on: 3/21/2022
Head back to DU.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:38 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Is it inherently unreasonable to ask whether the same sentence should apply to (i) a guy who shares a single image of a voluntary participant who appears to be an adult
If you’re taking naked pics of a young girl, do your diligence and make her produce her birth certificate to protect yourself.
You have to produce one to:
- play sports
- register for school
- get a passport
And so on….
Naked pics isn’t a stretch here, considering the potential crime.
They should be held accountable. Period.
This post was edited on 3/22/22 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:38 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Kinetic_Response
Did you defend Matt Gaetz as feverishly when HHTM was accusing him of having sex with a 17 year old?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:40 pm to roadGator
quote:18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b)(1) among others.
What law?
Is it wrong to have a few images of a 17-year-old on your hard drive? Yes. Should you be punished? Yes.
But it is also a "wrong" in a completely-different quantum from possessing hundreds or thousands of images depicting the abuse of pre-pubescent children, IMO.
A fair number of posters seem to disagree and see both offenses as having equal culpability. Such is life.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:43 pm to Rebel
quote:Do I see it as wrong for an adult man to have (even voluntary) sexual intercourse with a 17yo? Yes.
Did you defend Matt Gaetz as feverishly when HHTM was accusing him of having sex with a 17 year old?
Do I see it as "less wrong" than raping a 5-year-old child? Also, yes.
Candidly, I did not find the Gaetz brouhaha very interesting. I do not recall ever discussing it with anyone, one way or the other.
This post was edited on 3/22/22 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:47 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Kinetic_Response
Just admit it dude, you like to diddle kids and want the law to go easy on perverts like you
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:49 pm to FredBear
quote:If that is what you take from my posts, there is obviously nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
FredBear
Personally, I think you and the downvote posse are just virtue-signaling and that (deep down) you understand that.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:50 pm to Kinetic_Response
to your point the guy possessing a few porn images of 17 year old gets the minimum.
the guy with thousand of images of 5 year olds get the maximum.
But the scenarios you are describing are not the scenarios KJB is being asked about.
the guy with thousand of images of 5 year olds get the maximum.
But the scenarios you are describing are not the scenarios KJB is being asked about.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:51 pm to Kinetic_Response
quote:
Is it wrong to have a few images of a 17-year-old on your hard drive? Yes. Should you be punished? Yes.
So how much time should Hunter Biden get for sharing videos of under age women on Pronhub ?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:54 pm to Spawn
quote:
So how much time should Hunter Biden get for sharing videos of under age women on Pronhub ?
That's (D)ifferent.
Come on man.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:56 pm to Kinetic_Response
You sure you have her inquiry correct?
Posted on 3/22/22 at 2:59 pm to Rebel
quote:Usually true. But is "5 years" a reasonable sentence for that handful of images of a 17yo? That is the topic which been under discussion for at least a decade now.
to your point the guy possessing a few porn images of 17 year old gets the minimum
quote:Isn't it?
But the scenarios you are describing are not the scenarios KJB is being asked about.
That exchange before the Sentencing Commission related to possession offenders who are not "pedophiles," which is defined as persons sexually-attracted to pre-pubescent children. And she is being criticized for suggesting that lighter sentences for those offenders (versus abusers of pre-pubescent children) might be appropriate.
Look, she would not be my nominee. Scalia is my favorite Justice during my lifetime, and I would love to see SCOTUS populated by 9 textualists. But the Dems control the WH and the Senate. The nominee is not going to be a textualist, an originalist or a strict constructionist.
I just think that a nominee should be evaluated based upon her actual positions, rather than lunatic caricatures of those positions. I am sorry, but the response that "Dems were unfair to Kav and Thomas" just does not justify the disingenuous attacks, IMO.
And I make no apology for that perspective.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News