Posted on 09/14/2016 8:37:18 AM PDT by Paul46360
Man/Boy Love: Propaganda versus reality
To explain man/boy love today, one must first explain what it is not: It is not what you view on television or read in newspapers. It’s not what you hear on Oprah or Geraldo, nor is it the propaganda put out by police and politicians.
It’s the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.
Free speech.
People are allowed to advocate for changing and even breaking the law, as long as the effect isn’t too immediate, ie sedition and incitement to riot.
The courts’ view of speech is pretty much free of moral content.
If you look at social instead of legal opposition, NAMBLA still is a love that dares not speak its name. Its advocates hide on the internet and even anything-goes gay pride marches bar it now. Bad for the image.
I first heard about it when I heard that the celebrated overrated Beat poet Allen Ginsburg was an enthusiastic member. When criticized over it, Ginsburg retorted - "child rape? What about Rush Limbaugh? He commits mind rape!"
EHRLICHMAN: Hot Pants!...
...It's fatal liberality.
http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Ehrlichman+Hot+Pants
Find their membership list and begin the executions immediately..
NAMBLA is allowed to exist because influential people in our country support and participate in the concept. They also make money from it. Read The Franklin Scandal by John DeCamp.
Evidence of a corrupt FBI is also found while reading the book.
No wonder speech is free. So little of it is worth anything.
You are so right.
Very good question! Shut it down.
Very good question! Shut it down.
>>Read The Franklin Scandal by John DeCamp.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Who+Toook+Johnny
Interesting new light shed when America’s Most Wanted accompanies Paul Bonacci to a house in Colorado.
Who was the prison guard that owned it... and disappeared?
Could be. Just remember to ask though “Who gets to determine what speech is allowed?”
IMO we have to put up with some pretty vile ‘speech’ in order not to descend into a totalitarian Stalin-esque, Stasi state where only the elite, or the mob with the most military control gets to determine what can be said, written etc.
In the case of NAMBLA, I see it as a good thing that these people basically ‘out’ themselves so they can be watched to see if they act on their vile beliefs. It’s better to know what people are thinking/saying.
Be careful what you wish for.
We don’t execute people here for thought crimes ... no matter how vile. That could easily change and you could easily find yourself on the receiving end of mob justice.
What if they deem their acting it out as "speech?" After all, the Occuparasites and BlackLiesMatter reprobates claim this "right" with their lawbreaking.
Committing a crime is not “speech”. Molesting minors is a crime.
If the wanted to make a case that it was “speech” they would have to take it to court, probably all the way to the SC and I’m pretty sure they would lose.
For example, you can talk about murder in general, how you’d like to murder (not a specific person but you just want to do it). You could even start up an organization of people who would like to murder people, or talk about murder in general, ways to do it etc. But if you ACT on it, then you’ve committed a crime and can be arrested and hopefully put away for life.
That was Obama’s safe schools (ha!) czar, Kevin Jennings. Got fired after a public school teach-in, where he was recorded telling a 14 yr old boy that picking up johns (prostitution) at the bus station was ok, as long as he used a condom.
His firing was a CYA move by Obama, only because Jennings got caught.
Kevin not to be confused with Ken Jennings, Jeopardy champ.
Wise decision, lest someone read your history and decide that you are one of THEM!
Lumper, See Paul’s home page.
He posted it for informational purposes, not expressing support.
IOW, know the enemy in order to defend yourself, your kids, and your country.
NAMBLA has been around for decades, but they’re “coming out of the closet” in a big way now, by publishing editorials like this, although the writer still prefers to remain anonymous.
“ME” is the anonymous writer of the article, not the FReeper Paul46360 who posted it. (That confused me at first glance, too.)
Hope this helps.
Will Hillary condemn them as “Deplorable?” I’ll wager dollars to donuts they support her over Trump
Will Hillary condemn them as “Deplorable?” I’ll wager dollars to donuts they support her over Trump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.