You mean, the strategy that we tried in the election and failed?
This is also fucking stupid. You don’t get to say that you don’t value staying high, but then try to hold your opponents to that standard.
I mean, did you not notice how we took down Milo Yiannopoulos? His pro-pedophilia stuff wasn’t actually pro-pedophilia, but we used it against him because he is awful, and pedophilia was the only thing that got conservatives to stop supporting him, despite how awful he had been.
I keep saying this, and I will keep repeating this. We are at war. Our country is in the most danger it’s been in in at least half a century, if not longer. We can’t afford the luxury of the “moral high ground,” which is nothing more than a rhetorical strategy–one that doesn’t seem to work.
It’s just something the Republicans want to use against the Democrats.
Pure opinion, and moving the goal post. Here is the GOP national platform. Please quote the part where they advocate making gays sex illegal.
The GOP is definitely anti-SSM, and certainly not pro-gay rights. They are, generally, not pro-actively friendly to gays. But that is different from saying they advocate making gay sex illegal.
You, OTOH, have proven yourself to be a complete partisan hack, incapable of debating the other side honestly. Don’t expect any further responses form me on this subject until you quote the part of the GOP national platform that advocates making gay sex illegal.
I am not on “the other side” on this issue. But I’m embarrassed to be on the same side as someone who argues as dishonestly as you do. You do our side no favors.
What part of the comment you responded to says that you will find that in the official GOP platform? Do you have a cite that demonstrates Ike Witt said that it was written as such in official GOP platform?
You’re the one who moved the goalposts with the stupid idea that if they aren’t trying to make gay sex illegal there is no evidence they are against gay sex.
As is evident to anyone, especially anyone who read and understood the cites I gave, the anti-gay agenda of the GOP is now evidenced in many other ways since Lawrence. it is now illegal to prosecute gay sex so they moved the goalposts like you do to attack same sex marriage, transgender rights, gay rights, and to be generally not ‘friendly to gays’ as you say.
Your own words establish Ike’s original point: that the GOP is against gay sex. They are. Anything you’ve used to confuse the discussion by demanding cites as written in the GOP national platform is your own idea of what would constitute proof of ike’s statement.
It’s one of those vile smug little gotchas ! some Americans are so fond of. To set a person or business up by making them lawbreakers through one’s own despicable little post-facto trap is… nauseating.
And that expresses neither approval nor disapproval of porn; which is a separate issue from this entrapment.
Sodomy laws are still on the books in Michigan, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Alabama.
There are a lot of ridiculous, never-enforced state laws on the books in every state but at least some states are still actively enforcing their unconstitutional sodomy laws.
It would be a lot more appropriate for John Mace to provide cites to support his ridiculous claim that the GOP doesn’t oppose gay sex. He is the one arguing against what for most is just a basic reality that has been proven over many years in many ways.
John Mace: Ralph Shortey’s biggest embarrassment to his Republican cronies is not that the kid was 17, or that there was money involved, but that the kid was male. It has more to do with homophobia than the legality of gay sex.
And now the boy’s father has ensured his son has a delightful record for prostitution that will follow him around for the rest of his life and be a recommendation wherever he seeks work.
All because he wanted to get Shortey.
They stripped that language out in 2014. Yep, a clear sign that while 4 years ago they loathed and wanted to outlaw homosexuality, but now they are all a-ok with it!
I don’t understand how he is being charged with " engaging in child prostitution" if the kid is of the age of consent. Does it mean " minor" in this scenario?
How about I mock your claim that there’s such a thing as “legally pedophilia” and he was arrested for it? Can I do that? Because it cries out for mockery.
Not publicly. However in my country at least, one has to declare any convictions on many many forms until it is officially expunged.
Records of cautions and minor convictions do not step down and remain on the PNC [ Police National Computer ] and on enhanced CRB checks * until the offender’s 100th birthday.
Sex offences always have to be declared if one wants to work with children. And other vulnerable people.
I would guesssome American States ( and Canada since both American and Canadian customs can turn a foreigner away for small offences ) have more severe requirements for wiping out the offence.
( And even then there’s gonna be a record somewhere, cos if there’s one thing modern governments do best, it’s retaining data. )
