Inmate got 'Katie's Revenge' tattoo by force

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

And any pontificating intellectual who has never been a daddy to a little girl just needs to SHUT THE UP.

I have a little girl you stupid why do you think I posted that.

I used the smiley because he like you don't know what the your talking about so eat up a .

[T Park]

Gotta love Bob Lanier going Nambla and ACLU for this sick .


Tatoo and beat the out of all the sick bas s.

Personally they should all be lit up like firecrackers for being the sick perverts they are.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Gotta love Bob Lanier going Nambla and ACLU for this sick .


Tatoo and beat the out of all the sick bas s.

Personally they should all be lit up like firecrackers for being the sick perverts they are.

The fact that you just compared NAMBLA and the ACLU renders your argument useless.

[sandman]

I have a little girl you stupid why do you think I posted that.

I used the smiley because he like you don't know what the your talking about so eat up a .

Dude, reading comprehension. I was agreeing with your post and calling Bob Lanier the pontificating intellectual. Thus, a quote of his assinine statement followed by your rather astute observation.

You start a lot of bar fights over people looking at you the wrong way, don't you?

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

Dude, reading comprehension. I was agreeing with your post and calling Bob Lanier the pontificating intellectual. Thus, a quote of his assinine statement followed by your rather astute observation.

You start a lot of bar fights over people looking at you the wrong way, don't you?

My bad, just ing amazes me how one can speak volumes about they have no idea about.

[sandman]

My bad, just ing amazes me how one can speak volumes about they have no idea about.

Dude, I couldn't agree more. Maybe it's a good thing he doesn't have a little girl.

[T Park]

The fact that you just compared NAMBLA and the ACLU renders your argument useless

Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.

[AlamoSpursFan]

I have an 11 year old little girl, and I don't think what they did to that vile disgrace to humanity was quite violent enough. So sue me.

What SW said.

I think that after sentencing, the family of the victim should be allowed the option of some amount of time (say, 2-24 hours) with the perpetrator in a sound proof room and what ever happens happens.

I guarantee that if anything even remotely close to this happened to Little ASF, the head that did it wouldn't even LIVE to see his sentencing hearing. And I don't care what happens to me after I exact my revenge, because she is my whole life and if I lose her I have nothing to live for. , I'd probably off myself so I could continue kicking the s bag's ass all the way to and across the River Styx.

As for this loser, I hope he was getting gang-butt-raped while they were tattooing his worthless dome.

[ATX Spur]

I'm glad 70 percent of you aren't in any sort of charge over writing of laws, law enforcement, or adjudication.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Yeah, so much for that whole "majority rule" nonsense, anyways...

[ATX Spur]

Yeah, so much for that whole "majority rule" nonsense, anyways...

meaning what?

[AlamoSpursFan]

You really need a sarcastic comment explained to you?

[ATX Spur]

I'm just making sure I understood you clearly, because you're talking about something I wasn't. I'm not talking about majority opinion. I'm talking about right and wrong.

[ATX Spur]

Anyways ASF, I didn't mean to pick a fight. Going to bed now. Cheers.

[SpursWoman]

I'm glad 70 percent of you aren't in any sort of charge over writing of laws, law enforcement, or adjudication.

I'm sure there are thousands of child molesting murderers who would agree with you.

[MannyIsGod]

Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.

Does that mean we can compare Rush Limbaugh and NAMBLA?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.

Seeing as how the ACLU defended speech and not the actions of the group, your argument is still rendered useless.

From your own newsletter...

ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder
Posted: December 13, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "uncons utional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Cons ution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being uncons utionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court do ents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would cons ute the class in the suit.

And damn the ACLU for fighting for things like school desegregation, freedom of speech (however hateful or disgusting to you or me it might be, it's still speech protected by the Cons ution of the United States), freedom of expression, making sure the office of the Presidency of the U.S. is not above the law, et al.

I'm not saying I even agree with as far as the ACLU goes in the NAMBLA case (I believe that speech which incites a crime is not protected by the First Amendment), but for someone that always likes to say, "Well, Kori asked me to stay here, so you," when people bring up your year-long self-ban [seeing as how it's speech that no matter how stupid it was, you can yell and lie (since you did not actually do what you said you would do) all you want and nobody can force you to do different].

The ACLU didn't say, "Go little boys." They said, "You can say you think the laws should be changed, you can send out literature asking for people to pe ion their representatives to change the laws, but you suck for the vile acts you wish to perform."

Speech that is vile, disgusting and that you and I abhor is still speech protected by one of the most influential do ents in history.

[JUSTICE]

Vigilantism is usually sadistic and inhumane, and is always unjust.

First clause true, second clause false.

To claim that vigilantism is always unjust, you have to assume that whatever punishment the criminal justice system imposes is in fact just, and nothing more is appropriate. But the criminal justice system is not always (or often) just.

I mean, just take an anecdotal example: Guy murders someone, mountain of evidence against him, but police officers accidentally mishandled the most damning evidence, which is excluded from trial, and he's acquitted. This doesn't happen all the time (except on Law and Order), but it does happen.

Is it just for a murderer to walk free because of an ad hoc flaw in the procedural safeguards of the criminal justice system? Must we call it just simply because it was the result reached by our justice system? Or is justice a concept that exists outside of whatever system we have erected to exact it?

I think everyone will admit that the criminal justice system is capable of perpetrating an injustice at times, either by incarcerating the innocent or failing to punish the guilty. In the latter case, vigilantism can be the only thing that actually serves the ends of justice.

Now I agree that a civilized society can't allow vigilantism legally. I don't really know if tattoing the name of the little girl someone raped and murdered on their forehead is a "just" act. But ethically, in some situations, a vigilante act might be the only way to rebalance the scales or whatever. It is possible to imagine a cir stance where a private actor exacts the same punishment on a wrongdoer that the state would impose if the system hadn't failed.

How can you call that action unjust?

[ATX Spur]

I'm sure there are thousands of child molesting murderers who would agree with you.

Oh please. Agreeing with me are thousands of honest good people who don't want the State to have a mandate to brutalize citizens who have committed crimes.

[SpursWoman]

Oh please. Agreeing with me are thousands of honest good people who don't want the State to have a mandate to brutalize citizens who have committed crimes.

So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you.

[ATX Spur]

So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you.

Seriously? That's the road you're taking with this debate? I also have two arms and two feet like some of those offenders.

I'm hoping you're being as lighthearted as I am wont to perceive you.

[conqueso]

So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you.

i understand the immediate visceral reaction parents with kids (especially young girls) have to this kind of . but being unable to divorce that vitriol from notions of justice and legality places one amongst the emotionally temperamental rabble responsible for the u.s. being a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.

[SpursWoman]

I'm hoping you're being as lighthearted as I am wont to perceive you.

Yes.

Although I'm not going to apologize for not feeling sorry for these sons of es and am not sorry to see that since he didn't get the death penalty that his life has got to be as miserable as one could hope.


But maybe I'm just morally inferior that way.

[AlamoSpursFan]

i understand the immediate visceral reaction parents with kids (especially young girls) have to this kind of . but being unable to divorce that vitriol from notions of justice and legality places one amongst the emotionally temperamental rabble responsible for the u.s. being a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.

Do you have any idea how much inconsequential you'd have to vote on on a daily basis if this was a direct democracy?



Having examined both sides of the argument as presented in this here forum, I'm perfectly happy siding with SpursWoman. The rest of you can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with your friends the child-molesting murderers.

[ATX Spur]

Do you have any idea how much inconsequential you'd have to vote on on a daily basis if this was a direct democracy?



Having examined both sides of the argument as presented in this here forum, I'm perfectly happy siding with SpursWoman. The rest of you can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with your friends the child-molesting murderers.

You haven't examined anything. You haven't said one single thing against the other side. Only polarizing statements that build straw men without talking about the subject.

Instead, you're trying to diminish my (and that of the others) legitimacy by insinuating that we would somehow cavort with these dangerous criminals. If you don't want to argue about the subject, fine. You don't have to.