HenryBHough
Diamond Member
All Democrats are potential pedos so it just makes sense that they support those who they feel them when they need it most.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unless you are a Left Tard, then it's simply sex education, and you cannot define what a child is.Pretty sure everyone knows that child porn involves children.
The problem is many liberals don't see a big problem with child porn, think it is a victimless crime. They don't understand that in the making of the pictures, a child has to be abused, and if there were no demand for it there would be no industry. Some of this stuff is so sick it is unspeakable.
It is a crime. Lindsay Graham went nuts over Ketanji's seeming indifference to what punishment it deserves.Pretty sure everyone knows that child porn involves children.
They want to Destroy America..Seems that democrat elites don't want child rapists jailed.
Kavanaugh and Thomas are both great examples of how the Dirty Democrat Party smears innocent people.
The Dirty Democrats illegally used our own FBI and DOJ to smear President Trump and the Press played along with it.
Left Wingers have zero ethics or morals.
You are too fucking stupid to stay on topic. Has anyone attacked this nominee with made up personal shit from 30 years ago with ZERO evidence?Strange but you didn't consider Brett Kavenaugh's history of sexually abusing women at all important, nor the behaviour of Clarence Thomas.
You have no moral high ground on ANY nomination, considering the ODIOUS and disgusting picks by Trump, and others.
So, you think light sentencing of people trafficking in child pornography is equivalent to someone trafficking in animated images?Give me a break. Clarence Thomas overturned part of the child pornography protection act of 1996
Thomas opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),
The Court suggests that the Government's interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, ….
Why do you lie? He dissented in that case, you fucking Canuck!Give me a break. Clarence Thomas overturned part of the child pornography protection act of 1996
Thomas opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),
The Court suggests that the Government's interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, ….
It is true, there is no contention there at all. The perp in question is not a 'pornographer' though and that was never the claim. They owned images of child pornography.Wow, you get 10 years for child porn? That is as much as some get for murder.
We've got to fix the sentencing guidelines in this nation ASAP.
If true (which I doubt), the pornographer should have gotten much longer than three months.
Reporting the facts of a case is unclean? Nonsense.Unclean OP
New "Clean Start" Policy on Creating Threads
We always HAVE been a Discussion board. We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad...www.usmessageboard.com
The real pertinent issue in this case is not being talked about.....blatant black bias....aka black racism.....aka a black judge giving lenient sentences to black criminals and only to black criminals....she gave no lenient sentences to white criminals.It is true, there is no contention there at all. The perp in question is not a 'pornographer' though and that was never the claim. They owned images of child pornography.
Honestly, the details of the case itself are missing and what most people do not seem to realize is that with how obtaining porn online works, it is not entirely impossible that you may end up with illegal content entirely by accident, could have content you were not looking for or obtain hundreds of hours of illegal content in 10 minuets.
Without the details of the case, it really is impossible to determine how sever this particular instance is. If they establish a pattern of show that this person was actively looking for depictions of sexual acts with children then the sentencing should be enough to reject her. If not then there is noting here.
Her main comments on this seem to be that the individual in question was seeking imagery that depicted people close to his own age, 18, and ended up with something much more heinous. Should that send someone to prison for a decade? I am not so sure.
Reporting the facts of a case is unclean? Nonsense.
"No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards. Issues with moderation should be taken up privately with moderators in PM."I did not see that....where did you see that?
here is what i see............
Dick Durbin attempts to defend Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson
Sen. Richard J. Durbin on Sunday defended the record of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson after Republican criticism of her handling of child pornography cases in judicial and policy roles.
Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed allegations made last week by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in tweets that claimed “an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”
Accusations of leniency in child porn cases preface ...
15 hours ago · “Judge Jackson’s history of sentencing below guidelines, particularly in cases involving child exploitation, raises legitimate questions about …
Comment:
Dick Durban is a prolific prevaricator.
Of course Durbin will defend child porn crimes.
Senator Hawley is correct, Judge Jackson is soft on child porn crimes.
She does not follow the minimum sentencing guild lines and she uses racial disparities as her excuse.
Joe chose Jackson because she is a very good representative of the far left extremist and radical and racist Democrat Party.
Jackson will ignore the Constitution instead of defending it.
All of the usual Democrat Cult News Orgs are doing their "Fact Checking"(lying) about this.
"We Fact Checked it" LMAO >> WaPo NYT Yahoo HuffyPo
This is an important issue because of Hunter Biden's lap top pictures of him abusing a minor and Bill Clinton's many visits to Epstein's Lolita Island.
She will be put on the Supreme Court and as usual the Democrats will accuse the Republicans of racism for having doubts about her.
The Democrats are slowly working their way towards an Orwellian nightmare neo-marxist totalitarian one party police state and Jackson will help them get there.
Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.