Hypocrisy = Republican

The GOP self-hating epidemic rolls on....

Voting against their own best interests, wedge issues...
Republicans....

(picture of Abraham Lincoln): "Can someone please tell me what's happened to my party?"

and this is a shock to anyone?

Crimeny! I love the party of "Family Values"...

More of the same.

samdog @ 4:

"He’s been very active in the Little League and, predictably, was a chaplain for the First Christian Church, a position Republican child predators often use to seduce young children..."

Whoa, now. I hardly think child predation walks a political party line. I am sure you can find PLENTY of predators that vote democrat, green and communist. Maybe even a few that choose not to vote...anyway, I hate republican politics as much as the next guy, but to write a statement like this is just...well...honestly, no better than the republican hate speech you rail against so much.

The Dems don't claim to be the party of "family values" and "personal responsibility" , though ; you cannot make outright dishonest claims on that level and expect to be treated with kids gloves , especially when your behavior is extremely bizarre and abhorrent............

samdog @ 4:

"He’s been very active in the Little League and, predictably, was a chaplain for the First Christian Church, a position Republican child predators often use to seduce young children..."

Whoa, now. I hardly think child predation walks a political party line. I am sure you can find PLENTY of predators that vote democrat, green and communist. Maybe even a few that choose not to vote...anyway, I hate republican politics as much as the next guy, but to write a statement like this is just...well...honestly, no better than the republican hate speech you rail against so much.

I love how you latched onto the words that were quoted from a different source and attributed them to this site, yet you glossed over the part that says he was a bigwig for Mitt's Maryland campaign!

Latter Day Saints my ass!

was a chaplain for the First Christian Church

I often think that the reason the Church exists is to provide 'gainful' employment to pedophiles.

i'm sure there are all kinds of creeps across the political spectrum.... but the republicans have allied themselves with the very righteous religious groups, and i think they will regret it as they find out just why they are so damned religious.

You just can't make this stuff up. Sadly, grossly disgusting.

Y'all can call Mr. McKee a hypocrite to score political points against Republicans, but nothing in this article indicates to me that McKee ever acted in ways that would contradict his interest in protecting children from sexual violence or prosecuting the perpetrators of sexual crimes involving children. Nothing suggests that he ever intended to 'seduce young children', or that he was ever 'predatory'. Who knows what kind of material he possessed, but assuming he wasn't responsible for creating it, insinuations that he is dangerous and predatory are completely baseless.

samdog @ 4:

"He’s been very active in the Little League and, predictably, was a chaplain for the First Christian Church, a position Republican child predators often use to seduce young children..."

Whoa, now. I hardly think child predation walks a political party line. I am sure you can find PLENTY of predators that vote democrat, green and communist. Maybe even a few that choose not to vote...anyway, I hate republican politics as much as the next guy, but to write a statement like this is just...well...honestly, no better than the republican hate speech you rail against so much.

But Sam, can I call you Sam?

That may be true, and you have your feelings, but as the old saying goes "what goes around, comes around" If folks didn't pretend that are all for kids and then bugger them. perhaps folks won't make so much noise when this happens.

mellowjohn @ 22:

gonzo kept child predation at bay by rounding up all the child predators and finding them jobs in the republican political machine.

Kinda like the Vatican reassigning pedophile priests?

notreallyabadguy @ 24:

I'm sure when its covered on Fox news their names will have "D"'s after them.

And be described as "Clinton-Appointed".

I'm sure there are democrats who do similar things, although I haven't heard of any officials and such being busted, it's just that repubs frame themselves as the religious, protect the children, anti gay rights party. Then some of them prove themselves to the very people they profess to be against.

Rocco@19
Ah, possession of child porn is a felony and technically puts you in the category of a child predator. Even worse if you are found to be a distibutor

Fanon @ 28:

I really wish you hadn't posted these two stories together. Cross dressing may not be mainstream, but it's not illegal, and it's not hurting anyone. Gay doesn't equal pedophile.

C & L isn't trying to equate cross-dressing with pedophilia ; it is simply pointing out the hypocrisy that is the GOP...........

What's this now??? An example of 'it takes one to know one' sort of thing??? Or does it fall more under the catagory of, 'if the repuke is against something, it must mean he/she's doing it'.....

Either way all this shit just keeps on revealing itself and I for one am glad all this crap is coming home to splat on the republican holier than thou hypocrits shoes... Still, on another level, I'm totally sick and tired of all this republican induced shit wrecking our nation in more ways than one can even count accurately now days...

Why that party still has even a single breath of life, or even one fan amongst the electorate mystifies me. Even the 28 percenter knockledraggers ought to at least be so embarassed as to just shut the hell up and stay the fuck out of the way at this point....JD

POP
Maybe. I just doubt that if the judge had been arrested for DUI in a baseball uniform it would have been posted on the same thread as a guy caught with kiddie porn.

I've said this before: Ya gotta love those "Republican Family Values".

But the establishment went after Bernie Ward with less evidence and he lost far more than these yahoos ever will.

pissed off patricia @ 27:

I'm sure there are democrats who do similar things, although I haven't heard of any officials and such being busted, it's just that repubs frame themselves as the religious, protect the children, anti gay rights party. Then some of them prove themselves to the very people they profess to be against.

It happens. You don't read about it though, not sure why.

Media Avoid Linking Democratic Party With NJ Scandals
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 10, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - New Jersey = Corruption. That is the conclusion when reading news stories about the latest round of criminal charges involving public officials in the Garden State, according to political scientists and media analysts.

However, the political scandals that continue to beset New Jersey have not translated into negative press coverage for the Democratic Party, which has been disproportionately affected by the corruption charges and arrests.

A criminal probe targeting elected officials operating at most levels of government in New Jersey resulted in the arrest of 11 public officials and one private citizen last week. Only one Republican was ensnared in the corruption investigation organized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The other 10 elected officials were all Democrats, and the private citizen was active with the Democratic Party.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/PO...

Sorry - I meant "those who can't do, PReach". :)

lol

Fanon @ 29:

Rocco@19
Ah, possession of child porn is a felony and technically puts you in the category of a child predator. Even worse if you are found to be a distibutor

Yes, obviously it is a felony, and obviously the charges that he possessed child pornography will easily be proven. Legally, he is in big trouble. The letter of the law, however, and whatever labels may be used to categorize someone, do not change the fact that Mr. McKee is not (as far as we know) a sexual predator. He has not committed acts of sexual violence against children, did not abuse his position of privilege, and cannot rightly be considered a danger to society. If he did not directly or economically contribute to the production of child pornography, his crime is a victimless one.

Rocco @ 44:

Fanon @ 29:

Rocco@19
Ah, possession of child porn is a felony and technically puts you in the category of a child predator. Even worse if you are found to be a distibutor

Yes, obviously it is a felony, and obviously the charges that he possessed child pornography will easily be proven. Legally, he is in big trouble. The letter of the law, however, and whatever labels may be used to categorize someone, do not change the fact that Mr. McKee is not (as far as we know) a sexual predator. He has not committed acts of sexual violence against children, did not abuse his position of privilege, and cannot rightly be considered a danger to society. If he did not directly or economically contribute to the production of child pornography, his crime is a victimless one.

Because he received the child porn as some sort of "presser" or something ?

Viewing , and especially HANGING OUT TO , child pornography is contributing to it , you apologist fool............

pissed off patricia @ 43:

The GOP portray themselves as the party of all straight, god fearing people who put country and family before all else. I doubt many of us believe that, but that's what they want to believe about themselves so they will appear to be some sort of superior party. Of course there are gay people in the party. There are cross dressers. They are just human beings like everyone else. And they have their criminals in their party just as do the dems or any other political party. There is no superior party, just humans with different ideas.

Well stated. Conflict is so conflicting. LOL.

Judge Somma is / was a US Bankruptcy Court judge appointed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, not Bush. Sorry.

MCMetal @ 46:
Viewing , and especially HANGING OUT TO , child pornography is contributing to it , you apologist fool............

If by 'contributing to it', you mean 'contributing to its production', then you are obviously wrong. Simply possessing and viewing child pornography does not in any way lead to more child pornography being created. If by 'contributing' you mean 'contributing to its distribution or dissemination', you are also wrong. Unless the material is sold or shared by other means, there is not a net increase in the availability of child pornography to others. Therefore, while it is not always the case, it is highly conceivable that a large percentage of those convicted of possessing child pornography have done no more to harm society than someone who smokes a bowl after she finishes her work week.

ConcernedCanuck @ 41:

Shameless bribery. Illicit sex. Sweeping corruption.

"The Democratic Party is like the Gambino mob, but with matching federal funds."

In this raucous, head-spinning look at the follies and felonies of today's most famous and infamous liberals, journalists Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain chronicle for the first time the rampant crime, sex, and corruption of the Democratic Party. Donkey Cons reveals:

How corrupt Democrats in Congress outnumber corrupt Republicans by as much as three to one.
How Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy were elected with the help of the Mob.
What two eyewitnesses said about JFK's obsession with hookers.
How union operatives take from working families to deliver millions of dollars to Democrats.
How Democrats in the 1990's covered up a conspiracy one expert called "the largest incidence of obstruction of justice in American history."
Why Democrats ignore crime victims and take the side of rapists, robbers, and cop-killers-then stump for the right of felons to vote!
From bribery, kickbacks, and sex scandals to espionage, terrorism, and rape, what was once the "Party of the People" has become a party with an appallingly long rap sheet. And this hard-hitting, sad-but-funny expose of the crimes of the Democratic Party finally puts all their misdeeds into perspective. Thoroughly researched, using outrageous anecdotes and intimate details,
Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Hardcover)
by Lynn Vincent (Author), Robert Stacy McCain (Author)

I don't know who the authors are ( I suspect Repubs) but it does try to take some of the glister off of one party over the other, does it not?

Robert Stacy McCain is an assistant national editor for The Washington Times ;'nuff said........
Lynn Vincent is features editor at World Magazine where she covers news, politics and current events. Vincent is a U.S. Navy veteran. She lives in San Diego, California with her husband Danny and their two children.

World magazine is a Christian news magazine ...........Again , 'nuff said.

They are a pair of GOP nut hugging stooges............

Rocco
Victimless crime? I certainly don't see it that way. He certainly didn't obtain the images for free, therefore he has 'economically contributed' to the industry of child porn. His interest in pursuing possession of these items, and probably future one's, means a supply/demand cycle will exist. Ensuring more victims will exist. I don't see it as victimless.

Rocco @ 52:

MCMetal @ 46:
Viewing , and especially HANGING OUT TO , child pornography is contributing to it , you apologist fool............

If by 'contributing to it', you mean 'contributing to its production', then you are obviously wrong. Simply possessing and viewing child pornography does not in any way lead to more child pornography being created. If by 'contributing' you mean 'contributing to its distribution or dissemination', you are also wrong. Unless the material is sold or shared by other means, there is not a net increase in the availability of child pornography to others. Therefore, while it is not always the case, it is highly conceivable that a large percentage of those convicted of possessing child pornography have done no more to harm society than someone who smokes a bowl after she finishes her work week.

How many of those who "smake a bowl after work" , try to have marijuana , and those who use it , banned completely or incarcerated for even possessing it ?

Don't you see the laughable argument you are attempting to make ?

It is the same type of hypocrisy and semantics everyone in the garbage GOP plays when nabbed and confronted with their behavior and dishonesty..........

Rocco @ 44:

Fanon @ 29:

Rocco@19
Ah, possession of child porn is a felony and technically puts you in the category of a child predator. Even worse if you are found to be a distibutor

Yes, obviously it is a felony, and obviously the charges that he possessed child pornography will easily be proven. Legally, he is in big trouble. The letter of the law, however, and whatever labels may be used to categorize someone, do not change the fact that Mr. McKee is not (as far as we know) a sexual predator. He has not committed acts of sexual violence against children, did not abuse his position of privilege, and cannot rightly be considered a danger to society. If he did not directly or economically contribute to the production of child pornography, his crime is a victimless one.

You are a sick bastard trying to spin child pornography as being a "victim less" crime. Only a good GOPer can spin a pervert with child porn as not being in any way shape or form a conflict of interest in his duties as child protector.

If we were in the animal kingdom, I am sure how the GOPhiles would make a case that the fox is perfectly capable of guarding the hen house. The fact that he is a carnivore who loves poultry and has perfect fangs and claws, in no way should be taken as a proof of his conflict of interests as a hen guardian. After all, we have not seen the fox eating a hen, so we all should chill out an give the benefit of the doubt to the good hearted fox.

This is specially precious coming from a group, who a decade ago got their collective panties in a twist over oral sex between consenting adults as being literally responsible for the tarnishing of untold generations of children -current and future.

The judge would have made a good running mate for Rudy Giulliani.

The other guy will probably concoct an excuse that he was just doing research. Or running a sting operation. Then he'll be praised as a moral hero by Rush Limpdick and the rest. Maybe Bush will give him a cabinet position as a reward for showing the right GOPer stuff.

The GOP is like the worst of the Roman Empire, with Bush playing the lead role of Caligula.

The Republican party is filled with hypocrisy and serious contradictions.

Rollo Tomassi @ 32:

GOP = Gay Old Pedophiles

Thanks for the spit-take.

My dad used to always say GOP stood for grumpy old pishers.

I like your definition better.

Peter G @ 38:

Fanon @ 35:

POP
Maybe. I just doubt that if the judge had been arrested for DUI in a baseball uniform it would have been posted on the same thread as a guy caught with kiddie porn.

If the Republicans condemned baseball as a perversion it would be.

The way the Nationals play it, it is. *rimshot*

Rocco @ 59:

fuddled @ 51:

Rocco @ 44:

Fanon @ 29:

Yes, obviously it is a felony, and obviously the charges that he possessed child pornography will easily be proven. Legally, he is in big trouble. The letter of the law, however, and whatever labels may be used to categorize someone, do not change the fact that Mr. McKee is not (as far as we know) a sexual predator. He has not committed acts of sexual violence against children, did not abuse his position of privilege, and cannot rightly be considered a danger to society. If he did not directly or economically contribute to the production of child pornography, his crime is a victimless one.

good point. possession is not production or distribution. a simple trojan could make anyone guilty of possession at any time, and a blanket communications spying abled gov't could have a derelict officer send one to anyone at anytime. should possession be a felony? what help does such a decision help society?

The circumstantial evidence suggests he was so troubled by his sexual preference that he became a monstrous self-hater, and chose his political party accordingly. And, so instead of seeking alternative means of dealing with his sexual urges, the solutions he promoted were merely punishment, and severe socially ostracizing ones at that. how does this help society?

Yes. I think this kind of approach to understanding these individuals is much more useful than simple demonization and claims of hypocrisy. Maybe he truly believes that strict penalties for adults who engage in sex with children are among the most compelling reasons for him to stick to pornography and not take his urges a step further. If so, his legislative record is not hypocritical at all, but rather a means of strengthening his own moral limits in the realm of public law - a typical response from Republicans, but far more complex than people want to acknowledge.

Even viewing child pornography is heinous ; because it involves SEXUAL ACTS WITH CHILDREN.
Do you understand that ?
That is hypocritical when viewing his supposed stance , rhetoric and legislative record ; stop attempting to fob off this imbecile's behavior............

MCMetal @ 54:

ConcernedCanuck @ 41:

Shameless bribery. Illicit sex. Sweeping corruption.

"The Democratic Party is like the Gambino mob, but with matching federal funds."

In this raucous, head-spinning look at the follies and felonies of today's most famous and infamous liberals, journalists Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain chronicle for the first time the rampant crime, sex, and corruption of the Democratic Party. Donkey Cons reveals:

How corrupt Democrats in Congress outnumber corrupt Republicans by as much as three to one.
How Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy were elected with the help of the Mob.
What two eyewitnesses said about JFK's obsession with hookers.
How union operatives take from working families to deliver millions of dollars to Democrats.
How Democrats in the 1990's covered up a conspiracy one expert called "the largest incidence of obstruction of justice in American history."
Why Democrats ignore crime victims and take the side of rapists, robbers, and cop-killers-then stump for the right of felons to vote!
From bribery, kickbacks, and sex scandals to espionage, terrorism, and rape, what was once the "Party of the People" has become a party with an appallingly long rap sheet. And this hard-hitting, sad-but-funny expose of the crimes of the Democratic Party finally puts all their misdeeds into perspective. Thoroughly researched, using outrageous anecdotes and intimate details,
Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Hardcover)
by Lynn Vincent (Author), Robert Stacy McCain (Author)

I don't know who the authors are ( I suspect Repubs) but it does try to take some of the glister off of one party over the other, does it not?

Robert Stacy McCain is an assistant national editor for The Washington Times ;'nuff said........
Lynn Vincent is features editor at World Magazine where she covers news, politics and current events. Vincent is a U.S. Navy veteran. She lives in San Diego, California with her husband Danny and their two children.

World magazine is a Christian news magazine ...........Again , 'nuff said.

They are a pair of GOP nut hugging stooges............

I knew I recognized the one author's name, but couldn't place it. Thanks. So, this is all untrue?

Rocco @ 65:

Fanon @ 56:

Rocco
Victimless crime? I certainly don't see it that way. He certainly didn't obtain the images for free, therefore he has 'economically contributed' to the industry of child porn. His interest in pursuing possession of these items, and probably future one's, means a supply/demand cycle will exist. Ensuring more victims will exist. I don't see it as victimless.

How do you know he paid for the images? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. It's possible I suppose, and you are right that purchasing the material would create an incentive for more to be produced, but most of the online distribution of child pornography, at least, is conducted freely and anonymously.

So it's better that the child porn site is getting more/better advertisers , because of all the hits they are receiving from those like this clown ?

Drop your "victimless crime" argument ; it simply doesn't hold water.........

Rocco @ 71:

Tyler Durden @ 60:

You are a sick bastard trying to spin child pornography as being a "victim less" crime. Only a good GOPer can spin a pervert with child porn as not being in any way shape or form a conflict of interest in his duties as child protector.

Actually, the kind of reasoning I am using is far more likely to come from a liberal or an queer activist than from a Republican. And I am not a Republican. I plan to write in John Kerry's name on the ballot this November.

Yeah, and I am the Queen of Sada and I will be writing in Bob Dole this coming election.

Now be a good troll and go away.

He either contacted law enforcement in a sting or was fingered by another kiddie porn fan. My old boss knew of all the places one could rent an illegal for sex, he volunteered constantly for the Boy Scouts, and married a woman with two young boys. I still think he's creepy and will never allow him unsupervised access to children.

Rocco @ 71:

Tyler Durden @ 60:

You are a sick bastard trying to spin child pornography as being a "victim less" crime. Only a good GOPer can spin a pervert with child porn as not being in any way shape or form a conflict of interest in his duties as child protector.

Actually, the kind of reasoning I am using is far more likely to come from a liberal or an queer activist than from a Republican. And I am not a Republican. I plan to write in John Kerry's name on the ballot this November.

Oh , I see .............You're a goddamn clown..........I'll give you Ringling Bros' phone number , in case you're in the market for a job.........

Judge Somma was a bankruptcy judge and they are not appointed by the president (they are appointed by other federal judges). Is there any evidence that he was appointed or recommended by Bush or that he was a conservative?

Rocco @ 81:

MCMetal @ 70:

Rocco @ 59:

fuddled @ 51:

Yes. I think this kind of approach to understanding these individuals is much more useful than simple demonization and claims of hypocrisy. Maybe he truly believes that strict penalties for adults who engage in sex with children are among the most compelling reasons for him to stick to pornography and not take his urges a step further. If so, his legislative record is not hypocritical at all, but rather a means of strengthening his own moral limits in the realm of public law - a typical response from Republicans, but far more complex than people want to acknowledge.

Even viewing child pornography is heinous ; because it involves SEXUAL ACTS WITH CHILDREN.
Do you understand that ?
That is hypocritical when viewing his supposed stance , rhetoric and legislative record ; stop attempting to fob off this imbecile's behavior............

The viewing of child pornography may be heinous in the eyes of many, but here we are straying from the original assertion, which is that what McKee did is tantamount to predation, that it contributes to the victimization of children, that it is hypocritical, and that McKee is a dangerous man. If you want to argue that child pornography is (or is usually) heinous, than I have no argument. You win by virtue of running the ball back to your own 10 yard line.

"In the eyes of many" obviously does not include yourself , the McKee douchebag , and a good number of GOP polticians ; congrats , you moron.

BTW
I suggest you 'quick kick' and get the hell off this topic and your insane and weak attempt to defend this McKee jackasses horrific behavior..........

Rusty Shackleford @ 86:

Richard @ 82:

Judge Somma was a bankruptcy judge and they are not appointed by the president (they are appointed by other federal judges). Is there any evidence that he was appointed or recommended by Bush or that he was a conservative?

Yes. He was caught driving drunk while wearing a dress. Our guys are usually naked when they get caught driving drunk.

"Our guys" ?

Man-whore pimp ?

I knew it, I knew it, there really IS a Bonobo Caucus within the Repug Party!
I would have enjoyed seeing Judge Somma walk that strait line in high heels.......whoooweeey that would have been a howling good clip!!!

Tyler Durden @ 80:

Rocco @ 65:

Fanon @ 56:

Rocco
Victimless crime? I certainly don't see it that way. He certainly didn't obtain the images for free, therefore he has 'economically contributed' to the industry of child porn. His interest in pursuing possession of these items, and probably future one's, means a supply/demand cycle will exist. Ensuring more victims will exist. I don't see it as victimless.

How do you know he paid for the images? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. It's possible I suppose, and you are right that purchasing the material would create an incentive for more to be produced, but most of the online distribution of child pornography, at least, is conducted freely and anonymously.

So basically as long as the viewing of a child being raped does not involve a monetary transaction along the way, there is no rape. Right?

Just when I think that conservatives and their apologist can't get any lower than dirt... usually some person like you comes along, and proves me wrong; that not only you guys are much lower than dirt, but are in active training to dig much much deeper to access depths that normal decent human beings can't even fathom.

Or can't even see without the aid of a bathysphere or a bathyscaphe ...........

Tyler Durden @ 61:

Rocco @ 44:

Fanon @ 29:

Rocco@19
Ah, possession of child porn is a felony and technically puts you in the category of a child predator. Even worse if you are found to be a distibutor

Yes, obviously it is a felony, and obviously the charges that he possessed child pornography will easily be proven. Legally, he is in big trouble. The letter of the law, however, and whatever labels may be used to categorize someone, do not change the fact that Mr. McKee is not (as far as we know) a sexual predator. He has not committed acts of sexual violence against children, did not abuse his position of privilege, and cannot rightly be considered a danger to society. If he did not directly or economically contribute to the production of child pornography, his crime is a victimless one.

You are a sick bastard trying to spin child pornography as being a "victim less" crime. Only a good GOPer can spin a pervert with child porn as not being in any way shape or form a conflict of interest in his duties as child protector.

If we were in the animal kingdom, I am sure how the GOPhiles would make a case that the fox is perfectly capable of guarding the hen house. The fact that he is a carnivore who loves poultry and has perfect fangs and claws, in no way should be taken as a proof of his conflict of interests as a hen guardian. After all, we have not seen the fox eating a hen, so we all should chill out an give the benefit of the doubt to the good hearted fox.

This is specially precious coming from a group, who a decade ago got their collective panties in a twist over oral sex between consenting adults as being literally responsible for the tarnishing of untold generations of children -current and future.

Well said.

Rusty Shackleford @ 69:

Peter G @ 38:

Fanon @ 35:

POP
Maybe. I just doubt that if the judge had been arrested for DUI in a baseball uniform it would have been posted on the same thread as a guy caught with kiddie porn.

If the Republicans condemned baseball as a perversion it would be.

The way the Nationals play it, it is. *rimshot*

SWEET.

Fanon @ 73:

Rocco,
Gee, you seem to know a lot about the distribution of child porn, maybe we should run your IP?

Wow. Here - straight from the middle ages and the playbooks of a thousand religious and cultural oppressors, is the belief that knowing about something makes us guilty of something. Not having a clear understanding of the facts in a subject as delicate as this, not caring to know the truth and make distinctions to better understand human behaviors, and being 'courageous' enough to threaten someone who DOES care and IS armed with facts is a SURE sign of purity and enlightenment. What a sad state we live in, not because people disagree with me, but because someone on a purportedly liberal blog would threaten to expose me to police surveillance simply because of a viewpoint I stated. Good thing this government still has SOME protections from unjust seizure and surveillance.

Donald Cormac @ 6:

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires ALL cross-dressing judges to wear black and only black, fishnet or no fishnet. A red evening gown could subject the his honor to being disrobed. Bwahahahaha.

I crack myself up. (;>

The president does NOT appoint Bankruptcy Judges.

No Child's Behind Left Alone.

Rocco @ 97:

Fanon @ 73:

Rocco,
Gee, you seem to know a lot about the distribution of child porn, maybe we should run your IP?

Wow. Here - straight from the middle ages and the playbooks of a thousand religious and cultural oppressors, is the belief that knowing about something makes us guilty of something. Not having a clear understanding of the facts in a subject as delicate as this, not caring to know the truth and make distinctions to better understand human behaviors, and being 'courageous' enough to threaten someone who DOES care and IS armed with facts is a SURE sign of purity and enlightenment. What a sad state we live in, not because people disagree with me, but because someone on a purportedly liberal blog would threaten to expose me to police surveillance simply because of a viewpoint I stated. Good thing this government still has SOME protections from unjust seizure and surveillance.

Man, Fanon. I normally stay neutral in one on one's but you kinda got bitch slapped.

A woman puts on pants and she's called ..... nothing.

A man puts on a dress and he's called all kinds of things.

The crime was not the man's lack of fashion, although amusing, the crime was that he is a judge, involved in law enforcement, and he was driving drunk!!!

As a judge, he of all people should know the penalty for that reckless and endangering behaviour and he should be stripped of his judgeship, his law license, and do the time as well as lose his driver's license.

Rocco@97

That's a lot of words to say precisely.....nothing. What 'facts' are you armed with? You haven't produced a one. You have written some specious arguments using purple prose and have tried to pass those off as factual.

Rocco @ 106:

MCMetal @ 75:

Rocco @ 65:

Fanon @ 56:

How do you know he paid for the images? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. It's possible I suppose, and you are right that purchasing the material would create an incentive for more to be produced, but most of the online distribution of child pornography, at least, is conducted freely and anonymously.

So it's better that the child porn site is getting more/better advertisers , because of all the hits they are receiving from those like this clown ?

Drop your "victimless crime" argument ; it simply doesn't hold water.........

Explain to me how possessing child pornography without having paid for it and without distributing it creates a victim or intensifies the suffering of the original victim. Enough of this muddled thinking. I want clear justification for how guilt is to be distributed, clear explanations of how the gaze of the viewer creates more suffering, and persuasive argument that someone who does what I have described SHOULD be convicted of a felony and sent to prison even if she has never harmed a child.

Because it's against the law to even possess it. No matter how you got it. So by your reasoning, if someone gives you crack rather than selling it to you, should make a difference?

Lalimar @ 108:

It's like I'm reading the Onion, except it's true!

Brings tears to your eyes?

Rocco @ 110:

BTW, for the final time, I am not a Republican. I am confident enough in the superiority of liberal values and economic positions, and the enormous corruption and weaknesses of modern conservatism, that I find this whole 'republicans are child predators' meme to be incredibly distracting, short-sighted, and useless in actually convincing people to vote for Democrats and liberals for more than one election cycle (2006). As others have said, people from both parties can get caught up in this stuff, and as soon as one or two prominent democrats are caught in sex scandals involving people under 18, the meme will be useless at best, and at worst, harmful to our cause.

We had an aide to a senator get busted just a few weeks ago here in Washington state, but guess what, the senator fired his ass ASAP and he's in jail. We didn't try and pull damage control and hush it up.

Fanon @ 107:

Rocco@97

That's a lot of words to say precisely.....nothing. What 'facts' are you armed with? You haven't produced a one. You have written some specious arguments using purple prose and have tried to pass those off as factual.

Here is the fact:

Most online distribution of child pornography occurs freely and anonymously, and does not result in financial gain for person who created it, whether that person is a notorious and demonic pornographer, an adolescent with a web cam, or a person living in a state where pornography involving people of, say, 16 years old is perfectly legal.

This mirrors the current state of distribution of both music and movies. I'm not sure how this could surprise anyone, but people are looking at me with great incredulity as if I'm refuting Ecclesiastes or something.

Rocco @ 115:

Fanon @ 107:

Rocco@97

That's a lot of words to say precisely.....nothing. What 'facts' are you armed with? You haven't produced a one. You have written some specious arguments using purple prose and have tried to pass those off as factual.

Here is the fact:

Most online distribution of child pornography occurs freely and anonymously, and does not result in financial gain for person who created it, whether that person is a notorious and demonic pornographer, an adolescent with a web cam, or a person living in a state where pornography involving people of, say, 16 years old is perfectly legal.

This mirrors the current state of distribution of both music and movies. I'm not sure how this could surprise anyone, but people are looking at me with great incredulity as if I'm refuting Ecclesiastes or something.

Music and movies are not illegal to possess ; child pornography is.

BTW

No one is 'surprised' here ; you don't have the brain power to light a pocket flashlight , much less question Ecclesiastes ............

Rocco
The problem is that the word pornography is misleading and softens the impact of what is actually being viewed. The pictures themselves are pictures of child abuse in progress and, therefore evidence of a crime. They are not pictures of sex acts bewteen two consenting adults, they are pictures of an adult abusing a child.

The viewing of these items may not lead to more harm to the original victim, but it certainly does not diminish the fact that they are abuse victims and viewing these materials, as they are illegal, makes one a party to that abuse.

This topic has evolved into a creepy accusatory amateur detective like inquisition. No one is guilty of anything based on simple conversation. Stop watching that damn "Catch a predator" shit.

In all seriousness Rocco, did they make you do movies when you were a kid?

Left&Left @ 121:

This topic has evolved into a creepy accusatory amateur detective like inquisition. No one is guilty of anything based on simple conversation. Stop watching that damn "Catch a predator" shit.

Watching what? Lefty, what would you do if you came upon a picture of a child having sex with an adult? What would any reasonable person do? The article said he had child porn in his home AND on his computer. Doesn't sound accidental anymore. Now add to the fact that the guy was charged with PROTECTING children....and his religous connections...he's a pig.

Fanon @ 119:

Rocco
The problem is that the word pornography is misleading and softens the impact of what is actually being viewed. The pictures themselves are pictures of child abuse in progress and, therefore evidence of a crime. They are not pictures of sex acts bewteen two consenting adults, they are pictures of an adult abusing a child.

The viewing of these items may not lead to more harm to the original victim, but it certainly does not diminish the fact that they are abuse victims and viewing these materials, as they are illegal, makes one a party to that abuse.

The term 'child pornography' covers a lot more than images of adults and children engaging in sexual activity. I don't want to make a moral argument that child pornography that does not feature adults as participants is somehow less heinous, but we need to restrain our imaginations from jumping to the worst case scenario (depictions of abusive and forceful subjection of very young children to sexual activity with fat, old, mustachoid soccer coaches) whenever we think of child pornography. As others have mentioned, images classified as child pornography don't even necessarily depict acts we'd consider sexual.

As an added note, most child pornography that is circulated online is older material that has already been scrutinized by the police. The fact that it is free and available to anyone ensures that the police will see it first and respond immediately. Therefore, while it is true that someone who views this stuff is likely witness to a crime, that crime has likely already been prosecuted or at least investigated.

Fanon @ 128:

Rocco
Dude, me thinks you do protest too much.......

Are you once again implying that knowledge = guilt?

Rocco @ 122:

Rusty Shackleford @ 118:

Rocco @ 106:

Explain to me how possessing child pornography without having paid for it and without distributing it creates a victim or intensifies the suffering of the original victim. Enough of this muddled thinking. I want clear justification for how guilt is to be distributed, clear explanations of how the gaze of the viewer creates more suffering, and persuasive argument that someone who does what I have described SHOULD be convicted of a felony and sent to prison even if she has never harmed a child.

I see where you're coming from, and you have a point, but it is almost inconceivable that someone would have child pornography that he did not either produce himself or pay for. I'm not sure how it would happen that someone would just happen to acquire child pornography without exchanging something of value for it, or receiving it as a gift, and then simply neglect to throw it away or turn it over to authorities.

I'm not going to give any details because I don't want to cause trouble or get threatened again, but there are numerous channels for free distribution of media online, and almost any of these that are used for music or movies can also be used for illegal pornography. Obviously the person would intentionally seek it out, but she wouldn't be involved in an economic transaction or even a website hit that would benefit a distributor. That said, this person could also use other channels to pay for the material, and in that case you could argue that he is contributing to the exploitation of children and bears some culpability.

So in that scenario the people viewing the pornography are feeding a demand for it, ensuring that more is produced - or, in other words, that more crimes are committed.

In that case I don't think the absence of financial transaction is relevant. If a person is feeding the demand for the product - a demand without which the product would not be produced - then I don't see how he is not indirectly culpable for its production.

I’m not going to give any details because I don’t want to cause trouble or get threatened again, but there are numerous channels for free distribution of media online, and almost any of these that are used for music or movies can also be used for illegal pornography.

And you Republicans sure are experts at identifying it, winnowing it out, rating it, judging it, and consuming it.

Why, you're practically experts on something most people don't care about and don't want in their lives.

Now, why is that? And why are you so vocal and detailed in your defense of this kind of predatory behavior?

The jokes write themselves--rabid republicans defend their own by justifying ANYTHING, including defending a guy caught abusing prescriptions for Oxycontin and taking sex tours of the Dominican Republic.

No wonder the Republic is better off with you guys out of power and in jail. The sooner the better.

Rocco @ 129:

Fanon @ 128:

Rocco
Dude, me thinks you do protest too much.......

Are you once again implying that knowledge = guilt?

It is fascinating observing you take such a defense of child pornography, the wonders of projection.

I would love to make an IP name lookup, $10 bucks says that yours ends in gop.org

"Explain to me how possessing child pornography without having paid for it and without distributing it creates a victim or intensifies the suffering of the original victim. Enough of this muddled thinking. I want clear justification for how guilt is to be distributed, clear explanations of how the gaze of the viewer creates more suffering, and persuasive argument that someone who does what I have described SHOULD be convicted of a felony and sent to prison even if she has never harmed a child." - Rocco @106

Rocco,

I think it is still rightfully illegal in the hypothetical you posed, because the very existence of child pornography violates both the social contract that effectively exists between society and those within it who are defenseless, and it also violates and defiles the defenseless directly.

A child, or anybody under the age of majority, by virtue of being in a position of defenseless dependency upon others who have attained to the status of being independent, autonomous adults who are capable of exercising informed judgment - presummably in all matters, has the right to be protected from degradation, exploitation, and - in the case you cite - public humiliation and shame. Whether that porn has been paid for or not, you cannot advance an argument that the child has not been victimized and that the shame and degradation which was done to the child during the act of victimization was made public the instant that pornography was distributed. On distribution, no matter how it is done or who becomes privy to the desecration of the dependend, defenseless victim's privacy, the original violation of the victim is now multiplied, with the victim has no say in the matter. It is grave insult heaped upon profound injury. Possession of that pornagraphy is but an act of further violation of the innocent. It goes full circle from there, because if society tolerates this kind of thing, it betrays it's obligation to all who are innocent, dependent and defenseless. If society tolerates that, it is no longer a society.

Rusty Shackleford @ 131:

Rocco @ 122:

Rusty Shackleford @ 118:

Rocco @ 106:
I see where you're coming from, and you have a point, but it is almost inconceivable that someone would have child pornography that he did not either produce himself or pay for. I'm not sure how it would happen that someone would just happen to acquire child pornography without exchanging something of value for it, or receiving it as a gift, and then simply neglect to throw it away or turn it over to authorities.

I'm not going to give any details because I don't want to cause trouble or get threatened again, but there are numerous channels for free distribution of media online, and almost any of these that are used for music or movies can also be used for illegal pornography. Obviously the person would intentionally seek it out, but she wouldn't be involved in an economic transaction or even a website hit that would benefit a distributor. That said, this person could also use other channels to pay for the material, and in that case you could argue that he is contributing to the exploitation of children and bears some culpability.

So in that scenario the people viewing the pornography are feeding a demand for it, ensuring that more is produced - or, in other words, that more crimes are committed.

In that case I don't think the absence of financial transaction is relevant. If a person is feeding the demand for the product - a demand without which the product would not be produced - then I don't see how he is not indirectly culpable for its production.

I don't follow. How can someone feed a demand for something when there is no transaction of money, praise, or anything else that is tangible. Do you believe that there is some sort of psychic transaction that occurs whenever Pat X downloads illegal images from a free and anonymous channel, whereby the original producer, who may or may not have had anything to do with Pat X, is instantaneously rewarded with a mini-orgasm every time Pat X looks at one of his images? Pleeeeeze.

I am SO SO glad that the conservatives give us judges that don't legislate from the bench, have strong traditional family values, love Jeebus, blah, blah, blah.

Rocco @ 139:

Rusty Shackleford @ 131:

Rocco @ 122:

Rusty Shackleford @ 118:

I'm not going to give any details because I don't want to cause trouble or get threatened again, but there are numerous channels for free distribution of media online, and almost any of these that are used for music or movies can also be used for illegal pornography. Obviously the person would intentionally seek it out, but she wouldn't be involved in an economic transaction or even a website hit that would benefit a distributor. That said, this person could also use other channels to pay for the material, and in that case you could argue that he is contributing to the exploitation of children and bears some culpability.

So in that scenario the people viewing the pornography are feeding a demand for it, ensuring that more is produced - or, in other words, that more crimes are committed.

In that case I don't think the absence of financial transaction is relevant. If a person is feeding the demand for the product - a demand without which the product would not be produced - then I don't see how he is not indirectly culpable for its production.

I don't follow. How can someone feed a demand for something when there is no transaction of money, praise, or anything else that is tangible. Do you believe that there is some sort of psychic transaction that occurs whenever Pat X downloads illegal images from a free and anonymous channel, whereby the original producer, who may or may not have had anything to do with Pat X, is instantaneously rewarded with a mini-orgasm every time Pat X looks at one of his images? Pleeeeeze.

I couldn't tell you what value the original producer gets from making his content available for free on the Internet, and that's beside the point anyway. The point is that decreasing demand (by making it risky to possess child pornography) should decrease supply.

Strawberrybitch @ 138:

Paul @ 137:

"Explain to me how possessing child pornography without having paid for it and without distributing it creates a victim or intensifies the suffering of the original victim. Enough of this muddled thinking. I want clear justification for how guilt is to be distributed, clear explanations of how the gaze of the viewer creates more suffering, and persuasive argument that someone who does what I have described SHOULD be convicted of a felony and sent to prison even if she has never harmed a child." - Rocco @106

Rocco,

I think it is still rightfully illegal in the hypothetical you posed, because the very existence of child pornography violates both the social contract that effectively exists between society and those within it who are defenseless, and it also violates and defiles the defenseless directly.

A child, or anybody under the age of majority, by virtue of being in a position of defenseless dependency upon others who have attained to the status of being independent, autonomous adults who are capable of exercising informed judgment - presummably in all matters, has the right to be protected from degradation, exploitation, and - in the case you cite - public humiliation and shame. Whether that porn has been paid for or not, you cannot advance an argument that the child has not been victimized and that the shame and degradation which was done to the child during the act of victimization was made public the instant that pornography was distributed. On distribution, no matter how it is done or who becomes privy to the desecration of the dependend, defenseless victim's privacy, the original violation of the victim is now multiplied, with the victim has no say in the matter. It is grave insult heaped upon profound injury. Possession of that pornagraphy is but an act of further violation of the innocent. It goes full circle from there, because if society tolerates this kind of thing, it betrays it's obligation to all who are innocent, dependent and defenseless. If society tolerates that, it is no longer a society.

That was beautiful.

Strawberry,
Thanks. It feels true. In a very real sense, children belong to all of us, no matter who are the parents. that is so instinctually, as human beings and legally, as creators of society. That's why we reserve the right to remove children from the custody of abusive parents. We protect our children, if we are collectively sane. That's why we seal the records of, and protect the privacy of, juvenile offenders. That's why we intervene to protect - because they cannot do it for themselves. That instinct, or perhaps better, that thread of humanity runs so deeply in most of us, that even amongst prison populations of violent criminals, those most likely to die in prison at the hands of other prisoners are child molestors and abusers. Not even violent career criminals will tolerate such people.

Of all the harm that can be done to a defenseless, dependent innocent, sexual abuse is one of the most grave, because it scars so deeply that the psychic injury normally lasts for the duration of life and consciousness, twisting the paths that may have otherwise been taken, closing doors beyond counting of latent possibilities. there is no way, if it is thought fully through, that child pornography can be considered a victimless crime.

I’m not advancing an argument that the child wasn’t (in most cases) victimized.
What cases would those be Rocco?

Rusty Shackleford @ 143:

Rocco @ 139:

Rusty Shackleford @ 131:

Rocco @ 122:
So in that scenario the people viewing the pornography are feeding a demand for it, ensuring that more is produced - or, in other words, that more crimes are committed.

In that case I don't think the absence of financial transaction is relevant. If a person is feeding the demand for the product - a demand without which the product would not be produced - then I don't see how he is not indirectly culpable for its production.

I don't follow. How can someone feed a demand for something when there is no transaction of money, praise, or anything else that is tangible. Do you believe that there is some sort of psychic transaction that occurs whenever Pat X downloads illegal images from a free and anonymous channel, whereby the original producer, who may or may not have had anything to do with Pat X, is instantaneously rewarded with a mini-orgasm every time Pat X looks at one of his images? Pleeeeeze.

I couldn't tell you what value the original producer gets from making his content available for free on the Internet, and that's beside the point anyway. The point is that decreasing demand (by making it risky to possess child pornography) should decrease supply.

Yes, but convicting the person who possesses the material of a felony just so we can discourage its production seems like a violation of that person's rights, as it is a punishment that far exceeds the severity of the crime he committed. It may have a net social benefit (although I doubt it), but our society always needs to strike a balance between protecting the innocent and honoring the rights of its citizens. This maxim applies to everyone, as disgusting as we may find her behavior. As common practice, we should not hand out ultra-harsh penalties to those who have not done ultra-detrimental things.

Please stop accusing me of condoning child pornography when I am only arguing that not all participants are equally guilty and equally threatening to society. We need to exercise caution and moderation and avoid subscribing to knee-jerk hysteria that pervades so much of the mainstream culture on the subjects of sex offenders, child pornography, and child sexuality in general.