Rapist Protection Act?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Actually, it's my understanding after reading the text of the document itself. LinkOmni-Slash

How about providing those links that will prove that the majority of people on this board advocate for having sex with little kids?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]I'm failing to see the issue in this...forcible rape/date rape still covered...statutory "rape" is not....I love the extreme case they sue for statutory rape btw.... I'm Pro-Choice....but as it is a choice...you have to pay for it.....period.... it's funny so many people on these boards fight for the right to screw around with little kids....yet non-one wants to pay for the consequences...Omni-Slash

That's quite a big accusation. Care to prove it?

Sorry but when you make a claim the onus is on you to provide the evidence for it.

(such as a boss telling a subordinate that if she doesn't have sex with him she'll be fired.)nocoolnamejim

non-one wants to pay for the consequences...Omni-Slash

how did you figure that i wonder?

I'm personally not sure if statatory rape is actually rape in every single case. I wish there were a better way of deciding that, but I would be willing to pay taxes for an abortion in some statatory rape cases. and even though the system for deciding that is too generalized IMO (which is where I have a problem) I'm not going to hold it against the girls, who I would consider, rape victims. so, because of that, i would be willing to pay (begrudgingly) taxes for statatory rape, but would also call for a better way of deciding when to really call it rape.

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

I guess if it's not violent, it's not rape.

worlock77

It's only surprise sex.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"](such as a boss telling a subordinate that if she doesn't have sex with him she'll be fired.)Overlord93

the funny thing is, in those videos you speak of, the women probably really would get fired if they didn't have sex with the "boss" :P

I'm happy to see the Republicans fulfilling their promises they made to get the economy back on track and to lessen government involvement with business.

*sigh*

I've seen 3 threads in one day of the GOP doing something completely unrelated to this.

I hate the Republican party. We need a new, younger conservative party who isn't a bunch of morally corrupt, baby boomers who think it's thier job to spread the Christian morals to every part of this country.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

I guess if it's not violent, it's not rape.

comp_atkins

It's only surprise sex.

Tuesdays

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Actually, it's my understanding after reading the text of the document itself. LinkGreySeal9

How about providing those links that will prove that the majority of people on this board advocate for having sex with little kids?

first he needs to define "little kids". im assuming he means people under the age of consent. 16 is the age of consent in most states.

and more importantly he needs to somehow prove that no-one wants to pay taxes for statatory rape, or at least prove that the people who want to have sex with "little kids" are the ones saying they don't want to pay taxes for statatory rape.

where did that statement even come from btw? like, I don't even understand the angle. wait what?

you know whats funny, some of these guys are always talking about the children, the children's future, the debt children will have to pay, the children this, the children that, we should protect our children, blah blah blah lol,

but they wanna exempt statutory rape, i knew something was up, lol.

I'm happy to see the Republicans fulfilling their promises they made to get the economy back on track and to lessen government involvement with business.

*sigh*

I've seen 3 threads in one day of the GOP doing something completely unrelated to this.

I hate the Republican party. We need a new, younger conservative party who isn't a bunch of morally corrupt, baby boomers who think it's thier job to spread the Christian morals to every part of this country.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] you obviously didn't...yes it says forcible rape...acts of incest...or a minor...you're right..it doesn;t specifically mention mentally retarded individuals...I'm gonna guess that makes it through the final process..... :| damn them evil republicans....they want to end teh world for everyone..Phaze-Two

How about providing those links that will prove that the majority of people on this board advocate for having sex with little kids?

first he needs to define "little kids". im assuming he means people under the age of consent. 16 is the age of consent in most states.

and more importantly he needs to somehow prove that no-one wants to pay taxes for statatory rape, or at least prove that the people who want to have sex with "little kids" are the ones saying they don't want to pay taxes for statatory rape.

where did that statement even come from btw? like, I don't even understand the angle. wait what?

It came from this comment:

I'm failing to see the issue in this...forcible rape/date rape still covered...statutory "rape" is not....I love the extreme case they sue for statutory rape btw.... I'm Pro-Choice....but as it is a choice...you have to pay for it.....period....it's funny so many people on these boards fight for the right to screw around with little kids....yet non-one wants to pay for the consequences..Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How about providing those links that will prove that the majority of people on this board advocate for having sex with little kids?

GreySeal9

first he needs to define "little kids". im assuming he means people under the age of consent. 16 is the age of consent in most states.

and more importantly he needs to somehow prove that no-one wants to pay taxes for statatory rape, or at least prove that the people who want to have sex with "little kids" are the ones saying they don't want to pay taxes for statatory rape.

where did that statement even come from btw? like, I don't even understand the angle. wait what?

It came from this comment:

I'm failing to see the issue in this...forcible rape/date rape still covered...statutory "rape" is not....I love the extreme case they sue for statutory rape btw.... I'm Pro-Choice....but as it is a choice...you have to pay for it.....period....it's funny so many people on these boards fight for the right to screw around with little kids....yet non-one wants to pay for the consequences..Omni-Slash

oh i know. i just don't see what point the two statements here:

"it's funny so many people on these boards fight for the right to screw around with little kids"

and

"yet non-one wants to pay for the consequences.."

are making.

?????

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I'm happy to see the Republicans fulfilling their promises they made to get the economy back on track and to lessen government involvement with business.

*sigh*

I've seen 3 threads in one day of the GOP doing something completely unrelated to this.

I hate the Republican party. We need a new, younger conservative party who isn't a bunch of morally corrupt, baby boomers who think it's thier job to spread the Christian morals to every part of this country.

cybrcatter

i don't see the point of this post either. and how is it on-topic?

I'd like to think this wasn't a purposeful attempt to play down the significance of other forms of rape apart from "forcible rape" (which is silly, because all rape involves some force). But when you make a clear divide on who can get their solution (abortion) funded, which hints that one is worth paying for, and the other not (the divide in significance), then you don't make it seem very well-intentioned. At least be consistent if you're adamant about "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion". :?

I'll hold onto Hanlon's razor, in short. But christ, god-awful legislating if this is true.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I'm happy to see the Republicans fulfilling their promises they made to get the economy back on track and to lessen government involvement with business.

*sigh*

I've seen 3 threads in one day of the GOP doing something completely unrelated to this.

I hate the Republican party. We need a new, younger conservative party who isn't a bunch of morally corrupt, baby boomers who think it's thier job to spread the Christian morals to every part of this country.

Phaze-Two

i don't see the point of this post either. and how is it on-topic?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Republicans are so full of bullcrap. I'm completely fed up with dealing with their daily stupidity in Congress. It's high time we kick their stone-aged asses out of the government and join the rest of the civilized world.Ragnarok1051

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Statutory rape is one of a number of rape scenarios no longer covered. Go to a fraternity party and see some woman passed out on a bed from drinking too much and have sex with her? = No longer counts as rape Have a subordinate at work that you want to plow? Go ahead and tell her she'll be fired if she doesn't go along. = No longer counts as rape Know a mentally retarded girl that doesn't know what she's doing? Molest and impregnate away. = No longer counts as rape. Basically only violent rape would still count under this redefinition for the purposes of figuring out which women would be forced to carry your spawn to term.worlock77

Technically #2 is blackmail, not rape. I disagree with #1 and #3; those are stupid.

I don't think you quite understand what blackmail is.

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Republicans are so full of bullcrap. I'm completely fed up with dealing with their daily stupidity in Congress. It's high time we kick their stone-aged asses out of the government and join the rest of the civilized world.kayoticdreamz

Because they have been brainwashed by liberalism, both sides are terrible, but liberals seem to think that if theirs was in power some magical change would happen.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

Technically #2 is blackmail, not rape. I disagree with #1 and #3; those are stupid.

chaplainDMK

I don't think you quite understand what blackmail is.

Telling them to have sex with you or they're fired isn't blackmail; it's extortion (at best).

Republicans are so full of bullcrap. I'm completely fed up with dealing with their daily stupidity in Congress. It's high time we kick their stone-aged asses out of the government and join the rest of the civilized world.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"] I would like to kick the Democrats out with them. Neither of them are doing anything in Washington. Espada12

Because they have been brainwashed by liberalism, both sides are terrible, but liberals seem to think that if theirs was in power some magical change would happen.

this reminds me of the time in my country of origin when lawmakers tried to lower the age of consent to 13, i'm being serious this post.Who comes up with these laws.

This is a sick move man, a sick one, we should be protectn females of all ages.

this reminds me of the time in my country of origin when lawmakers tried to lower the age of consent to 13, i'm being serious this post.Who comes up with these laws.

This is a sick move man, a sick one, we should be protectn females of all ages.

Espada,

Please take your childish partisanship and embarrassingly superfluous ideological analysis somewhere that's relevant

cheers,

an angry observer

this reminds me of the time in my country of origin when lawmakers tried to lower the age of consent to 13, i'm being serious this post.Who comes up with these laws.

This is a sick move man, a sick one, we should be protectn females of all ages.

If it's not violent, it's not rape. If you're a 13 year old having sex with an adult, you're an idiot. th3warr1or

[QUOTE="urbangamez"]

this reminds me of the time in my country of origin when lawmakers tried to lower the age of consent to 13, i'm being serious this post.Who comes up with these laws.

This is a sick move man, a sick one, we should be protectn females of all ages.

Isn't the age of consent 13 in Japan?

T_P_O please hop aboard with scorch-62 on the hate train. I'm not going anywhere.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]If it's not violent, it's not rape. If you're a 13 year old having sex with an adult, you're an idiot. -Big_Red-

let me say...consentual sex should not be covered period...but IF it is true that they are advocating date rape drugs and mentally retarded people should not be covered...that's just rediculous....Omni-Slash

T_P_O please hop aboard with scorch-62 on the hate train. I'm not going anywhere.

Espada12

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"]If it's not violent, it's not rape. If you're a 13 year old having sex with an adult, you're an idiot. kayoticdreamz

If it's not violent, it's not rape. If you're a 13 year old having sex with an adult, you're an idiot. th3warr1or

I'm inclined to agree...

Adult= Idiot + pervert/pedophile.

13 year old= idiot.

(those involved)

Just challenge it to the federal court. Using religion as a reason to pass laws is unconstitutional anyways.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="urbangamez"]

this reminds me of the time in my country of origin when lawmakers tried to lower the age of consent to 13, i'm being serious this post.Who comes up with these laws.

This is a sick move man, a sick one, we should be protectn females of all ages.

Theokhoth

thanks theokoth, GS needs offline button,

yes protection from rape, incest, physical abuse, kiddnapers, murderers, pedophilers, fondlers, slavers, n twisted m...f..ers.

n now apparently lawmakers

The new healthcare must not be passed. It takes away our freedom of choice and it gives healthcare to illegal immigrants, but because we are at war Obama will use that law that allows passing of bills without going through congress.. Just as he has done with several other laws.00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] Protecting them from what exactly?urbangamez

thanks theokoth, GS needs offline button,

yes protection from rape, incest, physical abuse, kiddnapers, murderers, pedophilers, fondlers, slavers, n twisted m...f..ers.

n now apparently lawmakers

with what they do to the american people on a daily basis i'm sure they are worried about rape charges and how to mitigate them.

So basically what you're saying is that men don't get raped, there arent mothers who want to have sex with their sons, men don't get kidnapped, they don't get abused, women never kill men, there are no heterosexual female pedophiles, men don't get sold into slavery, there aren't twisted female mofo's.... Okay buddy. Gotcha. Sexist.......

-Big_Red-

Now where did i say that?

also if jennifer connely, keri hilson, gemma atkinson, halle berry, grace park, n kate walsh wanna hold me down together, i wont need protection

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"]

So basically what you're saying is that men don't get raped, there arent mothers who want to have sex with their sons, men don't get kidnapped, they don't get abused, women never kill men, there are no heterosexual female pedophiles, men don't get sold into slavery, there aren't twisted female mofo's.... Okay buddy. Gotcha. Sexist.......

urbangamez

Now where did i say that?

also if jennifer connely, keri hilson, gemma atkinson, halle berry, grace park, n kate walsh wanna hold me down together, i wont need protection

You didn't need to. And it looks like you have a rape fetish :P, some women have them too.-Big_Red-

rotflmao, very funny big red, lol.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"]You didn't need to. And it looks like you have a rape fetish :P, some women have them too.urbangamez

rotflmao, very funny big red, lol.

I've always said it, the republicans don't care about the poor and middle class, they only care about appealling to right wing nutjobs (this being the case here) and the rich.

Why would they try to help the economy or create jobs?

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] The new healthcare must not be passed. It takes away our freedom of choice and it gives healthcare to illegal immigrants, but because we are at war Obama will use that law that allows passing of bills without going through congress.. Just as he has done with several other laws.Theokhoth