Should gangbangers have civil liberties too?

[Ravi]

I've been hanging around with Mani for waaaay to long.

 

[jillian]

I liked your post. It looks as if they are making laws to curb the right to hang out because of an existing law that forbids people putting drugs in their bodies.

It's just plain stupidity, IMO, restricting one civil liberty because they've already restricted another.

ohhhhhhhhhh... sorry. And yeah, I guess that is the case...

 

[jillian]

I've been hanging around with Mani for waaaay to long.

lol... that was for another thread. now i have to go check to see if i gave *him* the hand.

 

[Ravi]

ohhhhhhhhhh... sorry. And yeah, I guess that is the case...

No problem. I often have trouble with the English language.

Making my point, that is.

 

[jillian]

No problem. I often have trouble with the English language.

apparently, so do i.... as well as posting things on wrong threads...

which i've now corrected. Thanks! lol...

 

[AllieBaba]

Hmmm...gangs shouldn't have their civil liberties stepped on, but those who live alternate Christian lifestyles don't need civil liberties.

Got it.

 

[manifold]

Hmmm...gangs shouldn't have their civil liberties stepped on, but those who live alternate Christian lifestyles don't need civil liberties.

Got it.

Wrong. Civil liberties should be extended to everyone. Period.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then you agree it's a violation of civil liberties to take children away from their parents without good cause, without charges being brought, and with no evidence of child abuse.

Good. We agree.

 

[Shogun]

when did polygamy become a civil right?

 

[manifold]

Then you agree it's a violation of civil liberties to take children away from their parents without good cause, without charges being brought, and with no evidence of child abuse.

Good. We agree.

Yes

 

[AllieBaba]

when did polygamy become a civil right?

About the same time gay marriage did.

It's not illegal to live with multiple "wives" provided the marriages are only religious marriages, and the people aren't fraudulently obtaining marriage licenses from the state. It's illegal when you're married using a state-issued marriage license, then get state-issued marriage licenses for subsequent marriages.

This may be the life for you, Shogun. No child support because there are no birth certificates, and the other wives will help care for the kids you don't want to support. And you can just bounce around from home to home as the wind takes you....

 

[Shogun]

About the same time gay marriage did.

It's not illegal to live with multiple "wives" provided the marriages are only religious marriages, and the people aren't fraudulently obtaining marriage licenses from the state. It's illegal when you're married using a state-issued marriage license, then get state-issued marriage licenses for subsequent marriages.

This may be the life for you, Shogun. No child support because there are no birth certificates, and the other wives will help care for the kids you don't want to support. And you can just bounce around from home to home as the wind takes you....

um, can you prove this or do I need to give you time to reassess this hilarious little statement.


I have to say it is quite rich to see the thumpers defending polygamy and sexual abuse for the sake of preserving your religious prerogative. RICH indeed.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not defending either. I'm saying people have the right to live however they like. If they didn't, you wouldn't have gay couples adopting children legally.

If there were actually charges being brought for child abuse, bring it on. But so long as there isn't, they shouldn't have taken those kids. It's a violation of their civil liberties, period. You don't take kids away because you don't like the lifestyle of their parents, or agree with their religion.

 

[manifold]

If there were actually charges being brought for child abuse, bring it on. But so long as there isn't, they shouldn't have taken those kids. It's a violation of their civil liberties, period. You don't take kids away because you don't like the lifestyle of their parents, or agree with their religion.

It's not often I agree with you Allie, but I find nothing disagreeable with this post.


Maybe I need to look harder.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not defending either. I'm saying people have the right to live however they like. If they didn't, you wouldn't have gay couples adopting children legally.

If there were actually charges being brought for child abuse, bring it on. But so long as there isn't, they shouldn't have taken those kids. It's a violation of their civil liberties, period. You don't take kids away because you don't like the lifestyle of their parents, or agree with their religion.

GAY couples are not out FORCING their adopted kids into a lifestyle that DICTATES that they get hitched to some 45 year old dude in the name of heaven. I realize that you really want to compare the two but you are only making a fool of yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no evidence that these people are either. Their star witness turns out to be a liar.

 

[jillian]

There's no evidence that these people are either. Their star witness turns out to be a liar.

Because she's been sworn, given testimony and you've ascertained her credibility?

 

[AllieBaba]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/phone-number-polygamist-case-linked-colo-woman/

"Swinton was arrested April 16 on a misdemeanor charge of false reporting in a February incident in Colorado Springs with no known ties to the Texas case. She was later released."

"Authorities have said a 16-year-old girl called a crisis center claiming she was abused at the compound. Authorities have not found that girl but say they have found evidence other children were abused."

In other words,they have anonymous phone calls from one person they can't find, and another who's facing charges for previously reporting falsely.

Sounds like an iron clad case to me, Jillie.

"The document released today shows Swinton had an extensive record in Colorado Springs of posing as a troubled teen and making false claims. The affidavit connects Swinton to several reports that alerted Colorado Springs officials."

Interesting, no?

"The document links Swinton to calls made throughout October from a "Dana Anderson." The caller claimed to be a young woman being abused by her pastor at Colorado Springs' New Life Church, and later as a 13-year-old student at Liberty High School who said she was being drugged and sexually abused by her father."

 

[jillian]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/phone-number-polygamist-case-linked-colo-woman/

"Swinton was arrested April 16 on a misdemeanor charge of false reporting in a February incident in Colorado Springs with no known ties to the Texas case. She was later released."

"Authorities have said a 16-year-old girl called a crisis center claiming she was abused at the compound. Authorities have not found that girl but say they have found evidence other children were abused."

In other words,they have anonymous phone calls from one person they can't find, and another who's facing charges for previously reporting falsely.

Sounds like an iron clad case to me, Jillie.

Because second/third hand information is the same as hearing someone's testimony....

Got it.

 

[AllieBaba]

She was never there, Jillian. I'm with you.