FSP & Age of Consent - split thread

[NewRightLibertarian]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

I think a sizable chunk of libertarians involved the FSP would like to monkey around with as many laws as possible, for the purposes of getting rid of them entirely.

 

[Anti Federalist]

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

Good god, I thought that was pretty clear, that there shouldn't even be such a thing, at least not one mandated by government and enforced by the police state.

If there is, then everybody better start being consistent: you have to 18 to enter into any other contract, so, no sex before 18.

Need some special tactical officers to enforce that as well.

 

[Danke]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

In the Air Force I was going to a weather lesson class. The instructor brought up the topic of relative humidity. My classmate from Alabama raised his hand. He Seemed confused as that was not what was taught growing up.

He said in Allabama, relative humidity is understood as the sweat rolling down your sisters back as you are getting her from behind.

 

[hankrichter12]

So, fine, they wouldn't.

So then what is your issue, other than the need to puff up and show how tough you are and drag down an organization you don't have to deal with or have anything to do with?

I live in NH, let me worry about FSP, and you mind your own business, how about that?

"Puff Up?" Not trying to show how tough I am, just making a point. All of you are so concerned about these dangers to the liberty movement and it's message yet you don't think someone proclaiming boldly on the air that 6yr olds can consent to sex is an issue? I've been scolded for not being like Ron Paul or agreeing with his views, OK, so is this Ron's view?

You don't think that is something people should be aware of if they are going to move to this community, and don't give me this crap that this was "one guy" I've gone round in that circle over and over, it is not just one guy as these comments show, and this one guy was saying it for years and no one seemed to care until it became a PR issue.

I'll "mind my own business", but I was even considering moving there, however I look into a place before I do, and when I heard of this crap and that it's been a well known issue for years and no one had a problem with it that made my mind up for me, and I decided maybe I should let others know as well and that maybe the FSP isn't what it is portraying itself to be, in the end, people can make up their own mind, isn't that fair?

I think a sizable chunk of libertarians involved the FSP would like to monkey around with as many laws as possible, for the purposes of getting rid of them entirely.

OK then, so what is the argument? I said in my original post, FSP wants to get rid of pedophilia laws, or at least change them - so why am I being attacked when it seems I am correct in what I stated????

Good god, I thought that was pretty clear, that there shouldn't even be such a thing, at least not one mandated by government and enforced by the police state.

If there is, then everybody better start being consistent: you have to 18 to enter into any other contract, so, no sex before 18.

Need some special tactical officers to enforce that as well.

OK chicken little, so now we're back to the ole semantics game?

 

[tod evans]

Too funny. No, clowns, I was merely pointing out how stupid your concept of "freedom" is. If you are going to say let's have no state, OK, fine, what do you think is going to be the response when you as a 30, 40 or whatever year old show up at someone's house courting their 16yr old daughter? Hate to break it to you but I don't think that is going to be allowed. The only thing even making it possible for you to make these absurd notions, is the state, no private community would tolerate it for a second.

Is reading and comprehension really so difficult?

The only "absurd notions" I've read about have been spouted by you, to wit; That government is the correct entity to set and enforce age restrictions on sexual behavior.


I keep pointing out the sheer number of governments functionaries who have been convicted of crimes against children and for some reason you keep calling for government to be involved.................Why is that Hank?

 

[otherone]

It's an expression,

It's not an expression... it's hyperbole, which is literally in every one of your arguments.

 

[hankrichter12]

Is reading and comprehension really so difficult?

The only "absurd notions" I've read about have been spouted by you, to wit; That government is the correct entity to set and enforce age restrictions on sexual behavior.


I keep pointing out the sheer number of governments functionaries who have been convicted of crimes against children and for some reason you keep calling for government to be involved.................Why is that Hank?

It's not an expression... it's hyperbole, which is literally in every one of your arguments.

More of the same. What is govt Ted? What is it tell me? See, I think I finally have figured out all of you and what your gig is. It's like how many of you say "I'm not going to vote, I'm not going validate their authority".

Fact is, none of you have any real ideas and you know it, you just want to sit on the sidelines, criticizing everyone else then when someone turns to you all they get is a bunch of vague soundbites about "freedom" and "liberty".

You don't want a "state" so let's get rid of all these things you consider a "state".

-You won't have judges or courthouses, disputes will be "brought before your peers" and they will decide - hmmm, sounds and awful lot like a jury and court to me

-When this group of peers decides, what then? What will make sure that decision is honored? Some kind of force.

-This decision, backed by force, well, you won't call it a law, but seems the message will get around town that people who commit that particular act will not be tolerated in your society, which sounds like a law to me.

-You won't have cops, you'll have private security who will use force to make sure people follow the rules - sounds like cops to me

-When asked what will happen if a wealthy business owner hires numerous security forces and tries to impose his will on others, I'm told those others will band together to stop him - sounds quite a bit like an army to me, and if those two sides fight over the territory, well, sounds awfully familiar to a war.

-You hate speed limits, drunk driving laws and the like, so you want private roads - and I agree with having private roads - but fact is you're a fool if you believe private roads won't have speed limits and such, heck, it's entirely possible you will have to take a breathalyzer before they even let you on their road, but just so long as you don't call the person doing it a "cop" - it's all good.

So how nice, all of you get to sit here on your soapboxes, perpetually talking down to everyone else, feeling so smug and morally superior knowing full well you will never actually have to walk any of your talk.

 

[otherone]

you just want to sit on the sidelines, criticizing everyone else then when someone turns to you all they get is a bunch of vague soundbites about "freedom" and "liberty".//
So how nice, all of you get to sit here on your soapboxes, perpetually talking down to everyone else

Which is it? Sideline or soapbox?
And how is your "approach" more productive? Do you figure you'll get better food at the FEMA camp if the state approves of your oral skills?

 

[tod evans]

Well Frank, (if I'm going to be Ted, you can be Frank)...

Maybe you could point to where I've set forth the positions you've chosen to accredit to me?

Regardless I'll engage your delusions to a point.......

Government as it sits isn't representative of the people, the disconnect is beyond repair. Courts and kops specifically (since you brought them up) must abide by a hierarchy that even their employees don't agree with. Ask several if you don't believe me. They must enforce laws that run contrary to common sense in order to suck a pension check out of the taxpayers.......Small towns like where I live and the surrounding counties don't generate enough revenue to support the kops-n-court employees on their payroll let alone the pensions they pay so state and federal coffers are tapped which makes the tax-ticks beholden to folks hundreds, or thousands of miles away...And the lowlife scum you'd deffer to will whore out their morals and ethics for state and federal money.

So go ahead and keep claiming that these people represent you if you'd like, they sure as hell don't represent me!

If you ever have call to be judged in one of their courtrooms you'll understand exactly how wrong you are with your assertion about a jury of your peers.

You're repeating approved rhetoric that has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

Once again I'll type; "Government is the problem, not the solution."

 

[tod evans]

Which is it? Sideline or soapbox?
And how is your "approach" more productive? Do you figure you'll get better food at the FEMA camp if the state approves of your oral skills?

Copsucker

 

[caracoid]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured out the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

No Hank, what you said when you started this was:

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."

To which I stated:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

I then went on to say however that if I were fourteen and an older woman slept with me I would have felt about the opposite of "victimized." And that the woman should not be prosecuted for something that did me no harm--and, in fact, something that actually made me a whole lot happier for. This is a case where blanket underage laws trample the rights of individuals and a clear example of how unchecked government will inevitably move toward unwieldy gigantism and clumsily begin to step on the very people it was originally designed to serve.

We've created a monster that is out of our control. And that I have to sit here and explain that to you makes me wonder how you could ever have thought about being a libertarian. What exactly were you thinking? I sure don't want to convince you to be a libertarian, obviously you don't "get it," nor will you ever. And in that semi-mythical future where we may have a place to live in under the tenants of our own values I sure do not want to have to be dragging guys like you along with me.

Since then you've attempted to pull every trick in the book, including misquoting, misrepresentation, convolution of intent of statement, and finally out-and-out physical harm in order to bully people into bowing to your self-righteousness. You insist on reading people's minds and then telling them that what they're REALLY thinking is that they would approve of the most deviant behavior that can be cooked up in some demented person's mind (uh, Hank) and refuse to acknowledge that in some cases the blanket laws as they are can result in tragic consequences.

The basis of your argument is taken right out of Alinski's liberal handbook, which has been used to paint Republicans as racist and which goes something like: if you don't agree with government handouts and government handouts are given disproportionately to minorities then you must hate minorities. You've turned a deaf ear to people's suggestions about more case-specific decision making and continued to flog your simple-minded insistence that if it's not your way you're a paedophile.

How in the world do you even sleep at night?

 

[hankrichter12]

Well Frank, (if I'm going to be Ted, you can be Frank)...

Yes, I noticed that misspelling, my apologies, you can still call me Frank if you like.

Maybe you could point to where I've set forth the positions you've chosen to accredit to me?

My response was not just to you, but what you said is my point, very few of you will ever set forth any positions, you only present criticisms.

Government as it sits isn't representative of the people,

Never claimed it was. If I was happy with state of affairs in this country I likely wouldn't on these boards would I?

the disconnect is beyond repair. Courts and kops specifically (since you brought them up) must abide by a hierarchy that even their employees don't agree with. Ask several if you don't believe me. They must enforce laws that run contrary to common sense in order to suck a pension check out of the taxpayers.......

Some will agree with the laws, some won't, this will always be the case, and what is your solution to this???

Small towns like where I live and the surrounding counties don't generate enough revenue to support the kops-n-court employees on their payroll let alone the pensions they pay so state and federal coffers are tapped which makes the tax-ticks beholden to folks hundreds, or thousands of miles away...And the lowlife scum you'd deffer to will whore out their morals and ethics for state and federal money.

What "low-life" scum would that be? Who is the one putting words in people's mouth here? - and once again, what is your solution to this?

So go ahead and keep claiming that these people represent you if you'd like, they sure as hell don't represent me!

I'd love for you to show me where I said "these people" represent me.

If you ever have call to be judged in one of their courtrooms you'll understand exactly how wrong you are with your assertion about a jury of your peers.

What assertion?

You're repeating approved rhetoric that has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

What rhetoric am I repeating and who approved it? What factual basis in reality is there for any of the stuff I hear on these boards?

Once again I'll type; "Government is the problem, not the solution."

Depends what you consider "government" and what the circumstances of the problem are. Thanks for trying, but your reply, like all the others, is just full of more criticisms and no suggestions.

 

[tod evans]

Yes, I noticed that misspelling, my apologies, you can still call me Frank if you like.

Apology accepted.

My response was not just to you, but what you said is my point, very few of you will ever set forth any positions, you only present criticisms.

Very few of whom?
I'm just one guy, not some part of a collective.
And you quoted me specifically didn't you?

Never claimed it was. If I was happy with state of affairs in this country I likely wouldn't on these boards would I?

I have no idea why you're "on these boards"...
From here you promote more of the same big government behaviors that Ron Paul fought against.

Some will agree with the laws, some won't, this will always be the case, and what is your solution to this???

Simple, no more federal money for law enforcement or courts.

What "low-life" scum would that be? Who is the one putting words in people's mouth here? - and once again, what is your solution to this?

Any and all employees of any "Just-Us" department or organization are low life scum, from the kops and judges to every one drawing a check from government in order to even remotely support sitting in judgement of another. These people are who whore out their morals and ethics, the same people you have supported throughout the discussion taking place in two threads now.

The solution is simple, no federal money.

I'd love for you to show me where I said "these people" represent me.

I quoted you yesterday posting in support of the FBI.

What assertion?

Your words below;

-You won't have judges or courthouses, disputes will be "brought before your peers" and they will decide - hmmm, sounds and awful lot like a jury and court to me

-

Depends what you consider "government" and what the circumstances of the problem are. Thanks for trying, but your reply, like all the others, is just full of more criticisms and no suggestions.

"Government" in the context I use it is a group of people who claim authority over me and mine who I cannot approach in their home on a Sunday afternoon.

The solution I keep offering is to cut all federal funding of all law enforcement, courts, kops and legislators.

 

[hankrichter12]

No Hank, what you said when you started this was:

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."

OK, fine I guess I should have said: "FSP, while they may not endorse sex with children, they won't specifically define what having sex with a child is and further they have no laws against it or punishment for it, because even tho they don't personally agree with it, it is not their place judge or force their "Puritan" values on anyone else" ---Is that better?

To which I stated:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

Yet you refuse to define what a child is.

I then went on to say however that if I were fourteen and an older woman slept with me I would have felt about the opposite of "victimized." And that the woman should not be prosecuted for something that did me no harm--and, in fact, something that actually made me a whole lot happier for. This is a case where blanket underage laws trample the rights of individuals and a clear example of how unchecked government will inevitably move toward unwieldy gigantism and clumsily begin to step on the very people it was originally designed to serve.

Whether or not it would have made you happier is irrelevant. You don't know it would have made you happier, she could have been some psycho who did things to you didn't want, she could have given you a disease, you could have gotten her pregnant - that is not a decision for a 14yr old to be making. Sure, plenty of 18yr olds do stupid things too, once again, I don't claim a perfect age, but I most definitely would lock that sick bitch up and if you were ever putting the moves on a 14yr old I'd say do the same to you.

We've created a monster that is out of our control. And that I have to sit here and explain that to you makes me wonder how you could ever have thought about being a libertarian. What exactly were you thinking? I sure don't want to convince you to be a libertarian, obviously you don't "get it," nor will you ever. And in that semi-mythical future where we may have a place to live in under the tenants of our own values I sure do not want to have to be dragging guys like you along with me.

Boinking 14yr olds is "one of our values", funny, I've never heard Ron Paul say that one, and if that is the kind of shit you guys are selling then yeah, I'm not with you and never will be.

Since then you've attempted to pull every trick in the book, including misquoting, misrepresentation, convolution of intent of statement, and finally out-and-out physical harm in order to bully people into bowing to your self-righteousness.

When? You've clearly stated you feel a woman who sleeps with a 14yr should not be punished, you further refused to state an age where you feel no way no how should it be allowed - do tell how I've misquoted you or any of that other stuff you claim.

You insist on reading people's minds and then telling them that what they're REALLY thinking is that they would approve of the most deviant behavior that can be cooked up in some demented person's mind (uh, Hank) and refuse to acknowledge that in some cases the blanket laws as they are can result in tragic consequences.

Again, when was this? Wasn't it you talking about screwing people's sisters and what not? I never made any statement relating to blanket laws, I suggested 18 was a good number, I left the floor open for other opinions, I fully stated some common sense should be used as in an 18yr old and a 17yr old type situation, and I certainly never tried any violence on anyone. I was pointing out what would happen in a private society if 30yr olds were trying to get with 16yr olds or younger.

The basis of your argument is taken right out of Alinski's liberal handbook, which has been used to paint Republicans as racist and which goes something like: if you don't agree with government handouts and government handouts are given disproportionately to minorities then you must hate minorities. You've turned a deaf ear to people's suggestions about more case-specific decision making and continued to flog your simple-minded insistence that if it's not your way you're a paedophile

Not what I said at all, and you flat out said you agreed with pedophilia, such as in your childhood fantasy that you keep bringing up over and over, so how exactly do I have it wrong?

How in the world do you even sleep at night?

How do you, you sick bastard?

Very few of whom?
I'm just one guy, not some part of a collective.
And you quoted me specifically didn't you?

Yes, I quoted you, I also quoted someone else, and as I said, you as well have made criticisms, no suggestions.

I have no idea why you're "on these boards"...
From here you promote more of the same big government behaviors that Ron Paul fought against.

Oh, OK, so Ron Paul fought to get rid of age of consent laws? Must have missed that one. I do confess I don't agree with Ron on everything but I'd hardly say he and I oceans apart in our views.

Simple, no more federal money for law enforcement or courts.

OK, fine, I'm game, then what?

Any and all employees of any "Just-Us" department or organization are low life scum, from the kops and judges to every one drawing a check from government in order to even remotely support sitting in judgement of another. These people are who whore out their morals and ethics, the same people you have supported throughout the discussion taking place in two threads now.

I support having age of consent laws, I support enforcing those laws, I say that with no shame, you disagree, don't really care.

The solution is simple, no federal money.

Again, great, and then what?

I quoted you yesterday posting in support of the FBI.

No, you quoted me saying I don't care if the FBI raids pedophiles. I don't support the Latin Counts, but the other day they beat the shit out of some guy who tried to steal a March of Dimes donation box, so, in that instance, I say Bravo to them.

"Government" in the context I use it is a group of people who claim authority over me and mine who I cannot approach in their home on a Sunday afternoon.

The solution I keep offering is to cut all federal funding of all law enforcement, courts, kops and legislators.

Go ahead and cut the funding - something else will just pop up in it's place, you will never change that, you will always have someone who "claims authority over you" regarding certain matters. You can have more or less of that type of thing, but you will never have none, that is a just a fact of life.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Go ahead and cut the funding - something else will just pop up in it's place, you will never change that, you will always have someone who "claims authority over you" regarding certain matters. You can have more or less of that type of thing, but you will never have none, that is a just a fact of life.

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

 

[jmdrake]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

 

[tod evans]

Admit it Hank, you actually like having people you don't know and can't access lording over you and your family.

You do have a family don't you?

The way laws and courts are today, odds are if you do have a family (and you're not a kop) you too will have occasion to experience "Just-Us" up close and personal....

Did you see the thread earlier about the kop who molested kids and killed himself in jail? There's another one of your heroes down in flames....

You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Government has caused these troubles, more government isn't going to fix them.......

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

+rep
And a sizeable chunk of those millions are Constittuionalists of some sort or another. SMH.

 

[jmdrake]

Here's something Ian Freeman wrote a little over a week ago proclaiming his belief that adults having sex with teenagers, 13 year olds, is fine as long as said teen affirms their desire to have sex with the adult. It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine." Keep in mind, also, that this is one of the main geniuses behind plugging people's parking meters for them. Adults having sex with children isn't any of his business, but parking meters are. What a mess.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually think it's wrong for a good Samaritan to go around and feed parking meters to save people from getting tickets? Are you trolling or just stupid? The issue is not whether or not it's his "business" to feed parking meters. It's a nice thing to do. It's like feeding the homeless. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing it. Seriously, if someone fed your parking meter would you be like "Damn you! I wanted that parking ticket!"

 

[hankrichter12]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

Yeah, nice straw man there, come on man, you used to at least post some half way intelligent stuff. So I guess playing by your rules I can say you agree with boinking 6yr olds since you don't want any laws against it right? Or would that be putting words in your mouth?

Admit it Hank, you actually like having people you don't know and can't access lording over you and your family.

You do have a family don't you?

The way laws and courts are today, odds are if you do have a family (and you're not a kop) you too will have occasion to experience "Just-Us" up close and personal....

Did you see the thread earlier about the kop who molested kids and killed himself in jail? There's another one of your heroes down in flames....

You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Government has caused these troubles, more government isn't going to fix them.......

How is enforcing a law already on the books "more government". How exactly did govt create pedophiles? If a cop molested a child I'd say he was already a pedo prior to that, people in all types of professions molest children, what you said is simply stupid.

You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Is this a joke? Right out of the starting gate Washington violated the Constitution during the Whiskey Rebellion. Slavery was legal. There was corruption between local sheriffs and wealthy land owners, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, I could go on and on.

You could argue that maybe in certain areas of life there was more freedom, I don't disagree with that, but it only goes to show what I already said: You can have more or less "govt", you will never have none.

As for all that other horse shit, I never said any of those things, but obviously you can't refute anything I actually said so you have to keep responding to things I didn't say so you can go into your little speeches.