[Zon]

Below is a classic Roscoe dishonesty.  He takes a statement about the jailing of young children that have not been charged with a crime and intentionally misconstrues it to mean that a young child runaway should not be held until his or her guardian arrives. Further more, he attempts to hide his statement by tacking on a question mark to the end of it. In the following sentence he responds to the statement as though it was fact. The original statement is blue text. Roscoe's reply is red text.

 From the Libertarian platform:

We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

Because you omitted the first sentence above are we to assume that you are in favor of jailing children not accused of a crime?

About the second sentence: That implies that under the current government young people are having their due process protections abridged. That sure sounds like young people are not being given Fourth Amendment protection. And that the Libertarian platform seeks to return full protection to the young people.

You are either incompetent, ignorant, or intended to deceive the reader. The choice is yours.

468 posted on 12/31/01 1:25 AM Pacific by Zon

 

A ten year runaway shouldn't be held until his or her parents or guardians are located? Libertarianism is a cartoon philosophy.

471 posted on 12/31/01 1:29 AM Pacific by Roscoe

[Roscoe]

No more "children's codes." No curfews, no drinking age, no drug use age, no age of consent.