Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
On FR Coming By "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/23/2013 8:33:00 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Using the same tactics used by "gay" rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexual.
(Excerpt) Read more at clashdaily.com ...
When we argued that this kind of thing would happen, they said we were crazy. What went wrong?
May these sick POS have their peckers chopped off!
Yep. Here we go. People a hell of a lot smarter than me predicted this...
I agree, let them all have free legal status.
GLBTP
they all have the right to one behind the ear...
I knew this would be next. And why not? Just call it your orientation and you’re beyond questioning.
I would argue that surgical mutilation of young boys and girls (transgenders) is more grotesque — and we’ve already crossed that bridge. Removing legal barriers that currently block older men from molesting young children would seem quite easy now.
And the people into necrophilia, bestiality, orgies - any and every perversion you can think of (and probably several none of us would come up with) are lining up for their “rights” to express their preferences.
It isn't!
They're all a bunch of child molesting whack-jobs. The fags just prefer boys.
The entire article is here:
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
Northern Colorado Gazette
Everyone should read the whole thing. It’s quite skin crawling.
These creeps have been doing this for years - NAMBLA was fodder for South Park like a decade ago. Moody’s buying, and there’s a discrete limiting principle - sex btwn adults is a lot different than sex btwn an adult and a minor, regardless of sexes involved.
You wouldn’t want a gay man put in charge of a bunch of older looking teenage boys, but that’s not bc he’s necessarily a pedophile, it’s for the same reason that you wouldn’t want a straight man chaperoning a high school cheerleading squad by himself.
Yep.
We saw this from a long ways back. Once the homos became “accepted” and “cool” and “protected” the pedos would be right behind.
I must admit that at first I didn’t agree with that prediction, but as things progressed, I very quickly saw that it was going to go that way.
And others said we were just being paranoid, or too uptight, or too whatever.
And yet here we are.
I see it. I saw it coming! And yet I can’t freakin’ believe it!
Stop the world! I want to get off now!
These creeps have been doing this for years - NAMBLA was fodder for South Park like a decade ago. Moody’s buying, and there’s a discrete limiting principle - sex btwn adults is a lot different than sex btwn an adult and a minor, regardless of sexes involved.
You wouldn’t want a gay man put in charge of a bunch of older looking teenage boys, but that’s not bc he’s necessarily a pedophile, it’s for the same reason that you wouldn’t want a straight man chaperoning a high school cheerleading squad by himself.
This will be a huge battle among libertarians, it is an internal fight that they have not firmed up on yet.
See excerpt from Time magazine below, from 2008
“Case in point: last month’s child-porn-gate.
The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.
That rigidity has long been libertarianism’s greatest asset. If the Democratic and Republican parties have any ideology, it’s an ideology of power — their policies shift and twist in the wind according to what they think will appeal to the biggest slice of the electorate. Libertarians have no power, but they have consistency and principle.”
Ping
They certainly know the formula and if it worked once then it will probably work again and again and again.
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.