Well done!

If you wrote that in Word, Radley, you can publish it for the Kindle in about 48 hours.

And/or you could do what George Will does, and take a bunch of old columns on a particular topic, slap an introduction in front of them, call it a “book” and put it up on Kindle and sell it for $2. I’d buy it.

When being a horny teenager is just a thin line from from being a child molester, we’re gonna produce a lot of emotionally fucked up kids. “Oh my god, I get arroused by my classmates and the government tells me that makes me evil! What am I gonna do! AGH!” I imagine Tweek from South Park saying that to himself and cutting his wrists open.

But I guess when the kids start becoming even more emotionally unstable, that’ll be proof that we’re winning.

Trying again.

As Radley makes abundantly clear, the Foundation tracks ALL pending legislation in this area. The fact that they’re tracking the progress of the legislation means that the Foundation thinks people interested in the topic might want to read about it, and not that any particular judgment is being rendered on the legislation.

Skunky, did you even read the fucking article?

As Radley makes abundantly clear, the Foundation tracks ALL pending legislation in this area. The fact that the progress of the legislation means that the Foundation thinks people interested in the topic might want to read about it, and that that any particular judgment is being rendered on the legislation.

Absolutely dead on, as is the rest of your comment. My wife hit the sex offender database for our area and was shocked at how many were in a 4 mile square area. A lot of Class Ones, a number of Class Twos, and a few Class Threes. I explained to her that the time her boss peed in the bar parking lot made him a Class One, the 18 year old that had sex with his 16 year old girl friend (what happened to age proximity? our laws used to incorporate that) might be a One or a Two, some Twos may be very bad depending on circumstances or pleas, but the Threes are the ones to really worry about.

I’m against the Sex Offender List as it is now, but I’m not for sex offenders, real sex offenders. The people that have promoted lumping in all of these trivial acts are the ones standing in the way of dealing with the real criminals.

“There oughta be a law” is one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language.

Just because a law is labeled “the defense of children act” or whatever sacred cow you want to throw out there, it doesn’t mean that protesting the law is arguing for abuse, or domestic violence, or whatever the issue is.

Laws have unintended consequences, which this site has chronicled frequently, and in depth.

Anyone who is truly concerned with catching and stopping child molesters, or sex traffickers, or any other human scum you care to name, would realize that lumping everyone you possibly can into that category not only punishes innocents, but also makes the job of finding the true criminals that much harder.

Is it that you think anti-globalization demonstrations make people imagine liberals and leftists to be soft on crime?

Or is it that you think that the concerns for civil rights expressed by liberal organizations(eg. ACLU and Amnesty International) don’t cause some people to think that liberals and leftists to be “soft on crime.”

Thank you for your help.

Rob

My point is that the left absolutely loves government power, which in its rawest form is police power.

I think you’re having a difficult time following the conversation here.

Perhaps you should consider reading before writing.

Hope this helps.

I don’t know what the anti-globalization protests could possibly have to do with being seen as “soft on crime.” (Is capitalism a crime now?)

Perhaps it all has to do with the bleeding hearts that everyone knows that the liberals have. (You know, the ACLU, Amnesty International, etc…)