Iraqi death toll at 655, 000 and Rising

It's still against the law. You can't break the law "a little bit."

 

<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's underage by how much (btw 18 year olds are also teenagers...)? Please, that's not a little kid.</div>

Regardless, this is a distinguished adult male who obviously can make that kind of judgment call. He could've thought the page was 18, but as someone in his position why make that call? The absurdity of deception's statement though is that it is being compared to Clinton/Monica, 16/17 or not.. you shouldn't get away with that. Not the same no matter how close to 18 someone looks/acts.

 

One isn't a child up until they are 17, and then magically turn into an adult one year later. Look at what you're typing, it seems like a witch hunt really. The guy sexually harassed paiges, but this was pedophilia? Lmao, no. It's not the same as messing with a ten year old. Don't put this guy in the same category as other freaks who look for elementary kids on a playground. If one's partner is almost legal, then one should be less scrutinized.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">One isn't a child up until they are 17, and then magically turn into an adult one year later. Look at what you're typing, it seems like a witch hunt really. The guy sexually harassed paiges, but this was pedophilia? Lmao, no. It's not the same as messing with a ten year old. Don't put this guy in the same category as other freaks who look for elementary kids on a playground. The closer one's partner is to becoming an adult, the less scrutinized they should be.</div>
Dude, the law states that someone can't legally give consent until they're 18. Now obviously you don't magically become rational at the age of 18, it's a process. But, that limit was put in there for a reason. For one, the kid isn't truly independant as he's still in high school and living with his parents. And it also correlates with voting laws, etc. I can't believe you're actually putting blame on the victim here. Of course it was pedophilia. There's no such thing as being a little bit of a pedophile.

What would you have done? Change the consent laws so that it's based on how mature a kid is for his age? Can't get much more ambiguous than that.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Dude, the law states that someone can't legally give consent until they're 18. Now obviously you don't magically become rational at the age of 18, it's a process. But, that limit was put in there for a reason. For one, the kid isn't truly independant as he's still in high school and living with his parents. And it also correlates with voting laws, etc. I can't believe you're actually putting blame on the victim here. Of course it was pedophilia. There's no such thing as being a little bit of a pedophile.

What would you have done? Change the consent laws so that it's based on how mature a kid is for his age? Can't get much more ambiguous than that.</div>

What are you talking about? Did you just skim through my last post? I am not blaming the "victim" at all, just the pundit-freaks on tv. And as I stated in the last line of my last post, the closer one's partner is to the "legal" age, the less scrutiny one should get if they have a relationship with them. Lol, whether or not one lives with their parents at age 16/17 makes no difference, they are more than developed, not to mention that some 18 year olds still go to highschool (and not everyone leaves their parents when they graduate from highschool)... 16 year old people are recognized as adults in court either way (as far as the voting laws are concerned, I've heard of it being discussed that it should be lowered to 16, heh). Please don't feed me any more of this "the law says so!!11" (off topic: Weed and prostitution should be legal). Analyze this situation (Paiges are 16/17 not pre-teens), it's unprofessional and it is wrong to sexually harass someone, but the pedophilia charges are out of hand. Why can't it be "a bit of pedophilia"? That's a ridiculous stance Chutney, their should be a distinction made amongst predators.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">I understand your point of view. It's not quite as deviant as a sexual predator going after a 13, 12, or younger person. However, if I was the father of this girl and found out a dirty pervert was sexually harassing her, I'd want to smash his face in with a shovel.</div>

Exactly, I agree with you on this.

 

Huevon, I see where you're coming from, but think of it this way. If an old lady were murdered should the punishment be less than if a grown man was killed? Would that make the offender any less of a murderer because she was closer to death? Of course not. The case is the same with Mark Foley. The law clearly defines this as wrong, and unless this law is changed there is no argument for this man to be treated any easier. Also, I am also constantly frustrated by the over-analysis of 24 hour news channels. Could you elaborate on how this is their fault?

 

The thing is, regardless how close to being 18 this page was... Mark Foley knowingly talked very explicit to these guys. He even told one to wait till he was 18 so they could have sex. He's a sick person who deserves all the scrutiny he gets. That's what happens when you're in the public light and do idiotic/perverted things to underage kids.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">What are you talking about? Did you just skim through my last post? I am not blaming the "victim" at all, just the pundit-freaks on tv. And as I stated in the last line of my last post, the closer one's partner is to the "legal" age, the less scrutiny one should get if they have a relationship with them. Lol, whether or not one lives with their parents at age 16/17 makes no difference, they are more than developed, not to mention that some 18 year olds still go to highschool (and not everyone leaves their parents when they graduate from highschool)... 16 year old people are recognized as adults in court either way (as far as the voting laws are concerned, I've heard of it being discussed that it should be lowered to 16, heh). Please don't feed me any more of this "the law says so!!11" (off topic: Weed and prostitution should be legal). Analyze this situation (Paiges are 16/17 not pre-teens), it's unprofessional and it is wrong to sexually harass someone, but the pedophilia charges are out of hand. Why can't it be "a bit of pedophilia"? That's a ridiculous stance Chutney, their should be a distinction made amongst predators.</div>
Yea, my bad about saying you were blaming the victim. What I meant to take exception to is the way you're diverting blame away from the culprit. And also the way you implied that 18 being the age of consent doesn't make sense.


The scrutiny placed on the offender should not be any less, just different in nature. You can't criticize Foley for preying on an unsuspecting/innocent child, but you can criticize him for breaking a law of consent and taking advantage of his position of power. The problem that I have with you questioning the age of consent is that it's a never ending argument. If we place it at 16-17, then kids may begin developing socially and politically faster than before. And then another argument follows it, about perhaps lowering it another year, etc. It become perpetual and illogical. The fact is that the current age of consent correlates well with other social rights that are given to a teenager. It also correlates well with the level of independance that the majority of kids begin to recieve. To make an exception on a law that has worked perfectly fine before, for one case with a messed up individual is preposterous.

Again, you can't make a legal distinction between these incidents, because it depends so much on the victim. How can you objectively measure how mature a teen is in comparison to others? It just spirals out of control, if you start interpreting laws in respect to every specific incident. Precedent is set up for a reason.

 

Alrite.... so the Iraqi death toll at is around 655,000 and rising...

 

There will never be a way to resolve such conflicts. Its funny when people say what the US should be doing. Of course it would be nice to spend the billions of dollars on health care and schooling for americas youth, but that will never happen. Someone doesn't become the President of the US to make $250,000. They strive to become President for other perks....such as giving HUGE MILITARY CONTRACTS to your buddies. The US military is a business, plain and simple. You create a product, when there is no demand, you make it urself. You bomb a country, start a war. Intalling a puppet government to sell you cheap oil is a great perk as well. The US spends billions of dollars every year on the military...if there is nowhere to use their bombs/planes/guns, do you think they are just gonna pack it in and say "oh well." Having said that, I am not anti american. I have no problem with the citizens and especially with the courageous souls fighting abroad, its not their fault. George bush has just lead this country to hell, and trust me, Canada is right in the handbasket ready to go with them. There is no justification worth the 100's of thousands of iraqis and 100's of americans who have perished in this sensless war. MARK MY WORDS...things are gonna get a hell of alot worse before they get any better...if at all.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yea, my bad about saying you were blaming the victim. What I meant to take exception to is the way you're diverting blame away from the culprit. And also the way you implied that 18 being the age of consent doesn't make sense.


The scrutiny placed on the offender should not be any less, just different in nature. You can't criticize Foley for preying on an unsuspecting/innocent child, but you can criticize him for breaking a law of consent and taking advantage of his position of power. The problem that I have with you questioning the age of consent is that it's a never ending argument. If we place it at 16-17, then kids may begin developing socially and politically faster than before. And then another argument follows it, about perhaps lowering it another year, etc. It become perpetual and illogical. The fact is that the current age of consent correlates well with other social rights that are given to a teenager. It also correlates well with the level of independance that the majority of kids begin to recieve. To make an exception on a law that has worked perfectly fine before, for one case with a messed up individual is preposterous.

Again, you can't make a legal distinction between these incidents, because it depends so much on the victim. How can you objectively measure how mature a teen is in comparison to others? It just spirals out of control, if you start interpreting laws in respect to every specific incident. Precedent is set up for a reason.</div>

Well first, I don't really care what happens to Mark Foley. I am speaking in general when I speak out on this issue.

What I am saying, is that 18 can remain the "legal" age, if one wishes it so, but one should always realize the difference between real pedophilia and flirting with people in their late teens. Hitting on Sophomores and Juniors in Highschool deserves less of a punishment as they are not as innocent or stupid as elementary/middle-school kids (hence, why they can recieve the death sentence in the court of law).

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting bryce40ww:</div><div class="quote_post">
Huevon, I see where you're coming from, but think of it this way. If an old lady were murdered should the punishment be less than if a grown man was killed? Would that make the offender any less of a murderer because she was closer to death? Of course not. The case is the same with Mark Foley. The law clearly defines this as wrong, and unless this law is changed there is no argument for this man to be treated any easier. Also, I am also constantly frustrated by the over-analysis of 24 hour news channels. Could you elaborate on how this is their fault?</div>

The analogy that was made earlier about the granny being murdered, is not valid. Murder causes severe trauma(pain) when it occurs at any point in one's life, whether or not one is a mature adult; whereas flirting with a 17 year-old will not make them go insane or feel great pain, they can handle themselves at that age.

 

<div class="quote_poster">norespect Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There will never be a way to resolve such conflicts. Its funny when people say what the US should be doing. Of course it would be nice to spend the billions of dollars on health care and schooling for americas youth, but that will never happen. Someone doesn't become the President of the US to make $250,000. They strive to become President for other perks....such as giving HUGE MILITARY CONTRACTS to your buddies. The US military is a business, plain and simple. You create a product, when there is no demand, you make it urself. You bomb a country, start a war. Intalling a puppet government to sell you cheap oil is a great perk as well. The US spends billions of dollars every year on the military...if there is nowhere to use their bombs/planes/guns, do you think they are just gonna pack it in and say "oh well." Having said that, I am not anti american. I have no problem with the citizens and especially with the courageous souls fighting abroad, its not their fault. George bush has just lead this country to hell, and trust me, Canada is right in the handbasket ready to go with them. There is no justification worth the 100's of thousands of iraqis and 100's of americans who have perished in this sensless war. MARK MY WORDS...things are gonna get a hell of alot worse before they get any better...if at all.</div>

I agree, it seems as if the hopes of the American people when electing a leader have become nothing more than wishful thinking. The government is and always will be corrupt but George Bush is the most in a long time.

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're right, but the role of government is to serve the people, not serve you're own financial interests. Most politicians have forgoten about this, and it generally leads to an unfavorable outcome for everyone.</div>

Of course you are right. But you are not living in an idealistic world. Democracy has given way to Capitalism. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. Its too much of a bureaucracy. Too much yappin, not enough resolution when it comes to matters that really concern people....such as health care and education. The US has painted themselves into a corner, they have established themselves as a "world leader" and military power. They can't go back on those things now, because they have gained too many enemies, and going back would be percieved as weakness. But there must be a stronger emphisis on diplomacy. It is evident throughout history that evey world power has come crashing down at one point or another. The Roman and Ottoman empires controlled almost half of the globe in their hay days, and they hit the ground like a safe. Even in more modern times we saw Imperial Japan and the German Empire fail. The US is stretching themselves too thin and alienating themselves from too many countries.

 

<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It pisses me off when people criticize Bush for going into Iraq. Have you heard the testimonies of some of the victims at Saddam's trial. Do you know what they were doing to people in Iraq? Nukes or no nukes, somebody has to protect the people of those countries.</div>

I think the major problem people have with this "removal of an evil dictator and installing democracy" reasoning, is that there are plenty of inhumane injustices going on in the world and the U.S. government seems to have nothing to say or do about it.

the genocide in rawanda is a perfect example. here is a group of people that were getting BUTCHERED with dull machete's and the government did nothing about it. it barely made the news. most people dont even know about it. most people think the movie Hotel Rawanda is about don cheadle's cozy stay at african holiday inn franchise.

If this is the real reason the U.S. went into Iraq, then I sure hope we see more action in other countries.

 

<div class="quote_poster">norespect Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The Roman and Ottoman empires controlled almost half of the globe in their hay days, and they hit the ground like a safe. </div>
"they hit the ground like a safe" sounds like a very quick collapse.

However the Roman Empire which was established around 30 BC and went strong until 180 AD, but had to fight various barbarian invasions, then had some struggles until 240 AD, civil wars, barbarian invasions until 285, still united, 285 AD it split into Western half and Eastern half, because the emperor felt it was two big for one guy. Then it was split, and had multiple leaders for each side, and lots of emperor deaths, eventually in 476 AD the Western side fell.

The Eastern side got smaller over centuries and completely fell in 1453 AD to Ottoman Turks.