Oh, and if anyone tries to make the arguement; I’m a guy sitting on a couch, doing laundy.

Rep Murtha was making accusations on the house floor, speaking in his capacity as a member of the US House. Big difference.

But it’s cool… i’m not trying to discourage you from writing…

I think it’s amusing that 107 felt the need to type what he did.. as if 106 didn’t know it already.

I wasn’t writing for the benefit of Livewire. For every one person who knows a thing, there are a thousand who don’t.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. We can hold whatever opinions we want.

Like my lock them up for life feelings…

Uh…anyone here remember Ruby Ridge? All the government has to do nowadays is accuse someone of something, and their life is over. You don’t think that’s a little…uh…fascist/communist/totalitarian/French? (Lol, sorry, I love silly French people. ).

There is a reason why the Founders insisted on the “guilty until proven innocent” thing, which was (pardon the phrase) revolutionary at the time. It was intended to protect the citizens against abuse at the hands of the government, who (in case you aren’t familiar) control every aspect of the criminal justice system.

To feel revulsion and anger toward a crime and the temptation to feel that way against someone accused of that crime are understandable. To say that we should dispose of the underpinnings of our civil liberties as a result is just foolish and not only un- but anti-American. Especially when one realizes how politicized any action undertaken by the government can be, and the possible consequences of letting them get away with it (Waco).

Just a thought.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. We can hold whatever opinions we want.

Like my lock them up for life feelings…

Oh….my….goodness! Ian and Chase are actually resorting to the “no child was harmed” defense of a pervert caught in a sting.

Yeah, the “no child was harmed” defense. The Democrats have come a long way since Janet Reno decided it was better to burn children alive than risk having them sexually abused.

You guys really need to read full sentences. I wrote that whether or not a child was harmed, the intent rises the offense to the same level as the Omaha shooting, even if the “victim” was a cooperating witness. It makes no difference who was on the other end of the computer and that’s what I wrote originally.

Do you ever think that your rigidity to your own political assumptions impairs your reading comprehension? It seems to.

84. Ian: “McHaney is not charged with actually abusing a child but he is appropriately charged with a crime and was fired appropriately.[Emphasis added]

Sorry to interrupt, kids, but since when did we give up the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”? Or, did we sacrifice that along with all our other civil liberties in the name of political expediency?

A forced leave of absence until conviction might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances; firing someone accused of a crime, no matter how serious or politically charged, is un-American, and a sad commentary on the state of our society’s understanding of basic human rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

Guess we should all just move to France and get it over with.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled bickering.

I still think it was ethically wrong of Studds to do what he did but your attempt to equate it with what either Rudy’s man pal or McHaney did is simply pathetic.

Ian, you are unteachable. Rudy’s “man pal” is guilty in your eyes only. You have no “progressive” credentials. You are a smug, self-centering adonis with an expanded fascination with your own aura. I sincerely hope your recalcitrance is not due to an inability to comprehend the progression of simple logic.

The reason Gerry Studds got re-elected was because Democrats care less about the sexual abuse of minors than Republicans do.

why did Democrats repeatedly re-elect Gerry Studds to office after he was caught sexually abusing a minor?

Well, the guy was over the age of consent so your depiction is bullsh!t. I still think it was ethically wrong of Studds to do what he did but your attempt to equate it with what either Rudy’s man pal or McHaney did is simply pathetic.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was
charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor
working as a congressional page.

In other words, Democrats define “pedophile” as “anyone who has sex with anyone under the age of 18, even if it’s over the age of consent”.

Unless, of course, it’s one of their own like Gerry Studds.

More frantic arm waving does not alter the fact that Democrats have demonstrated a much higher tolerance for sexual abuse of minors than Republicans.

45 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24160.php

68: Really? Do you hame some kind of report showing that everyone re-elected to office and convicted of some kind of sexually related crime was always a democrat? I notice you love to throw around some real general statements without much backup to them.

Clearly with Senator Craig’s stupid path of trying to reverse his guilty plea and reverse his promise to resign, then all of this “republicans never do that” theory is blown out of the water.

Just goes to show what I wrote earlier; sexuals predators don’t seem to be limited to choice of political views.

Oh…and let’s not ignore the story came out today that Huckabee pushed for the released of a convicted sex offender who committed murder after he was released. Looks like we’ve got this election’s Willie Horton all sewn up. Not really German to this topic per se, but so much for Republican stand on tough stands on crime.

said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. “I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms?”

Umm… Because any 35 year old who dates a 15 year old is a scumbag like McHaney, and likely to have something wrong with him? Tragic. I hope Barlow has sued the guy, or something.