WWTBAM Bored

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: In Detroit, Newark etc,when 14 year-old pregnant girls show up at school or wherever-How many statutory rape cases are pursued by the Democrat TPTB in those places?

But 14-year-old girls can and do get pregnant with the help of 14-year-old boys more often than with 34-year-old men.
.

Cite your source please. Also, expand the impregnation age of the male to 21 and up.

I would also be interested to see the male age breakdown in those tough 90% Democrat voting areas like the south and west side of Chicago.

ghostjmf wrote:Spock:

An uncle is the brother of either your father or mother. If there's some kind of racist-code meaning, as your message says, I'll pass on looking it up.

Maybe you can consider it racist. I got it from the most liberal author that I consistently read. -Alexandra Fuller.

A protagonist in her latest novel-"Quiet Until the Thaw" was raped by 2 "Reservation Uncles" as a young teen. It is one of those terms that you either understand what she meant right away-or you willfully choose not to.

While fiction, it is a problem faced by countless young girls on the rez (and in the ghetto). I expect you and SSS to not even admit that the problem exists. That is a simple out for you and the cycle is perpetuated.

I am not "willfully choosing" anything. In genetics, your uncle is the brother of your mother or father. If some author wants to create some new, non-genetic meaning, don't claim my not knowing their meaning, when I've never read their work, is "willfully choosing" to ignore something you think you know that you think I should know.

Spock wrote:I expect you and SSS to not even admit that the problem exists. That is a simple out for you and the cycle is perpetuated.

I've never denied that child sexual abuse exists. It exists in lower class minority neighborhoods. It exists in the heartlands of Minnesota. It exists in well-to-do parts of the country. And it's a major problem with potentially devastating lifelong mental effects for children of all racial and ethnic groups.

No one has denied that.

What you keep propounding without proof other than the existence of pregnant 14-year-old girls is that authorities are somehow lax or unwilling to do something about it or, at least, far less willing to go after minority pedophiles than well-to-do respectable white pedophiles. Keep in mind that these are the same authorities who have no problem in filling this country's jails with black males of all ages on all sorts of other charges.

Based on your last post, your source appears to be a novel. I could just as easily cite Stephen King's It for the proposition that the greatest source of danger to children is the presence of psychotic clowns in gutters.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I expect you and SSS to not even admit that the problem exists. That is a simple out for you and the cycle is perpetuated.

I've never denied that child sexual abuse exists. It exists in lower class minority neighborhoods. It exists in the heartlands of Minnesota. It exists in well-to-do parts of the country. And it's a major problem with potentially devastating lifelong mental effects for children of all racial and ethnic groups.

No one has denied that.

What you keep propounding without proof other than the existence of pregnant 14-year-old girls is that authorities are somehow lax or unwilling to do something about it or, at least, far less willing to go after minority pedophiles than well-to-do respectable white pedophiles. Keep in mind that these are the same authorities who have no problem in filling this country's jails with black males of all ages on all sorts of other charges.

And of course, none of this whataboutism has anything to do with the question at hand -- whether Roy Moore deserves a seat in the Senate and what, if anything, Republicans will do about it. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Because the Washington Post spends a lot more time and effort reporting a race for the United States Senate than it does reporting a race for Chief Justice of Alabama. And because gradually, bit by bit, it's becoming safer for women to talk about these incidents publicly.

Your more general complaints against the "democrat[ic] machinery" are simply not grounded in fact, and indicate that Donny's efforts to delegitimize the press are working.

So given that you accept that Moore did it (at least probably), what, if anything, are you going to do to hold Republicans accountable? --Bob

Even though I said I already knew your list of reasons, you decided to list them anyway.

The tactics of the democrat machine and the bias of the press have been on parade way before trump. They have been obvious to anyone with a functioning mind (who is not disturbed) but have been brought forward by trump, because he uses a way to communicate that bypasses the democrat controlled media.

What am I gonna do to hold republicans accountable? So I guess all republicans are ok with child molestation in your eyes now? I guess I could go door to door in my town and convince all republicans to vote for the democrat, but I don't think there are any republicans in Olympia. So I am going to hold republicans accountable by pointing out that you are a disturbed individual, by your own admission.

There's lots you could do, starting with contributing money to Moore's opponent, and continuing with supporting the opponents of anyone who continues to support Moore. If you don't want to, you don't want to, but there are, in fact, things you can do. --Bob

I never give any money to any politician. It just encourages them. I specifically don't check the box for political funding when I pay my taxes. I don't want Moore to get elected. I don't want his opponent to get elected either. But luckily, I don't live in AL, so I don't get a say in it.

I am in favor of going back the original intention of the founding fathers: to have Senators representing the State's interests, and have them appointed by the States. Then, among other advantages, we wouldn't have people like you donating money to influence the election of a Senator for a state you don't live in.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Even though I said I already knew your list of reasons, you decided to list them anyway.

The tactics of the democrat machine and the bias of the press have been on parade way before trump. They have been obvious to anyone with a functioning mind (who is not disturbed) but have been brought forward by trump, because he uses a way to communicate that bypasses the democrat controlled media.

What am I gonna do to hold republicans accountable? So I guess all republicans are ok with child molestation in your eyes now? I guess I could go door to door in my town and convince all republicans to vote for the democrat, but I don't think there are any republicans in Olympia. So I am going to hold republicans accountable by pointing out that you are a disturbed individual, by your own admission.

There's lots you could do, starting with contributing money to Moore's opponent, and continuing with supporting the opponents of anyone who continues to support Moore. If you don't want to, you don't want to, but there are, in fact, things you can do. --Bob

I never give any money to any politician. It just encourages them. I specifically don't check the box for political funding when I pay my taxes. I don't want Moore to get elected. I don't want his opponent to get elected either. But luckily, I don't live in AL, so I don't get a say in it.

I am in favor of going back the original intention of the founding fathers: to have Senators representing the State's interests, and have them appointed by the States. Then, among other advantages, we wouldn't have people like you donating money to influence the election of a Senator for a state you don't live in.

You know why the Seventeen Amendment was passed, right? It's because companies found it much easier and cheaper to buy state legislators than to win elections.

And what happens, by the way, when the two Houses of a Legislature are split and can't agree on a Senator? Does the state simply get shortchanged? What if, thanks to gerrymandering, a minority of voters are able to elect a majority of the Legislature? Why do you simply want to exchange one set of politicians for another?

The Seventeenth Amendment was a good idea when it was ratified and it's a better idea now. --Bob

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: In Detroit, Newark etc,when 14 year-old pregnant girls show up at school or wherever-How many statutory rape cases are pursued by the Democrat TPTB in those places?

But 14-year-old girls can and do get pregnant with the help of 14-year-old boys more often than with 34-year-old men.
.

Cite your source please. Also, expand the impregnation age of the male to 21 and up.

I would also be interested to see the male age breakdown in those tough 90% Democrat voting areas like the south and west side of Chicago.

Of for fuck's sake! How the hell are you blaming Democrats when it's the Republicans who are pushing abstinence-only sex education and defunding Planned Parenthood? What's special about Republican 14-year-olds?

A sixth woman has now come forward. This is one the Washington Post didn't locate (or at least didn't publish about). --Bob

Just an observation. I went to high school before Roe vs Wade. I don't remember there being a day care center in my high school. (There wasn't). Are they ubiquitous now?

flock:

I don't know if all high schools now have day care, but wouldn't you rather teen mothers care for their children than be impelled to give them up or drop out for shame, as happenned in my day, which I'd guess is yours?

And why bring Roe vs Wade into it? Surely impregnated teens who have had abortions don't need day care.

ghostjmf wrote:flock:

I don't know if all high schools now have day care, but wouldn't you rather teen mothers care for their children than be impelled to give them up or drop out for shame, as happenned in my day, which I'd guess is yours?

And why bring Roe vs Wade into it? Surely impregnated teens who have had abortions don't need day care.

Because BJ brought in Planned Parenthood. We didn't have easy access to that when I was a kid. I'm sure there were pregnancies back in my high school days, (I didn't know of any, personally) but are you saying it compares to how many there are today? I don't think so. So, what has changed?

Before bob gets on his high horse, I did have Roe vs Wade in my senior year. Wasn't much interest to me at the time. Maybe my school added a daycare the year after I graduated.

My point, ghost, is that MAYBE the same kind of change in our culture that put daycare into our high schools may also contribute to why there are so many people using guns, among other things, to commit mass murder, and common sense gun laws ain't gonna fix it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:flock:

I don't know if all high schools now have day care, but wouldn't you rather teen mothers care for their children than be impelled to give them up or drop out for shame, as happenned in my day, which I'd guess is yours?

And why bring Roe vs Wade into it? Surely impregnated teens who have had abortions don't need day care.

Because BJ brought in Planned Parenthood. We didn't have easy access to that when I was a kid. I'm sure there were pregnancies back in my high school days, (I didn't know of any, personally) but are you saying it compares to how many there are today? I don't think so. So, what has changed?

What's changed is that teen pregnancies are down 51% over the last twenty years. I'm still looking for data from earlier years.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with the six women who have very persuasively accused Moore of inappropriate conduct, including at least three who have charged him with conduct that probably constituted a crime under Alabama law. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Just an observation. I went to high school before Roe vs Wade. I don't remember there being a day care center in my high school. (There wasn't). Are they ubiquitous now?

Here we go. Actual data. Teen births dropped steadily from 1960 until the early 1980s. They rose for a few years and have steadily declined for the last 20 years.

Come to think of it, my mother was a teenager when she was pregnant with me, and I was born 11 months after she married my father. More unmarried teens are having kids now because fewer teens are getting married. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:flock:

I don't know if all high schools now have day care, but wouldn't you rather teen mothers care for their children than be impelled to give them up or drop out for shame, as happened in my day, which I'd guess is yours?

And why bring Roe vs Wade into it? Surely impregnated teens who have had abortions don't need day care.

Because BJ brought in Planned Parenthood. We didn't have easy access to that when I was a kid. I'm sure there were pregnancies back in my high school days, (I didn't know of any, personally) but are you saying it compares to how many there are today? I don't think so. So, what has changed?

Planned Parenthood isn't just for abortions. They are a major provider of birth control as well.

SSS>>>I've never denied that child sexual abuse exists. It exists in lower class minority neighborhoods. It exists in the heartlands of Minnesota. It exists in well-to-do parts of the country. And it's a major problem with potentially devastating lifelong mental effects for children of all racial and ethnic groups.

No one has denied that. <<<<

To generalize my problem with your broad bush is that you apparently believe that the proportion of 14-Year Old girls in very tough situations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation with its 3rd World living conditions and massive social ills is exactly the same as the proportion in, say, Burlington, Vermont.

Spock wrote:
To generalize my problem with your broad bush is that you apparently believe that the proportion of 14-Year Old girls in very tough situations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation with its 3rd World living conditions and massive social ills is exactly the same as the proportion in, say, Burlington, Vermont.

I don't know what "your problem" is, other than the fact that people on Indian reservations live in near poverty conditions. Maybe it took reading a book by Alexandra Fuller to give you that insight, but most of us are aware of it already. The percentage of all people on Indian reservations who are in "very tough situations" is higher than in say, Burlington, VT. And considering that most Indian reservations in this country are located in red states, you can't blame the problems on Democratic legislators at any level.

There are problems with prosecuting crime on Indian reservations, but that has more to do with the rather odd legal relationship between the Indian "nations" and the Federal government. And, again, that would apply to criminal prosecutions in general, not just those for child sexual abuse.

But the question I've posed about five times already still remains. What makes you think, other than perhaps reading this one novel, that the police are not interested in prosecuting this sort of crime?

flock:

It boggles my mind, literally, that you actually think daycare in high schools is somehow linked to mass shootings. How?

By the way, there were plenty teen pregnancies when you were a teen. Because you weren't aware of them doesn't make it not-so. Pregnant teens who didn't get those rare abortions were disappeared until after the baby, which was usually also disappeared.

Have you been following the case in Ireland? Which had no abortion or any form of birth control in the 50s & 60s? Orphanages where 800+ bodies of tiny babies have been dug up. Sanctity of life, yeah.

Bob Juch wrote:What's special about Republican 14-year-olds?

They mostly grow up and pay their own way.

ghostjmf wrote:flock:

It boggles my mind, literally, that you actually think daycare in high schools is somehow linked to mass shootings. How?

By the way, there were plenty teen pregnancies when you were a teen. Because you weren't aware of them doesn't make it not-so. Pregnant teens who didn't get those rare abortions were disappeared until after the baby, which was usually also disappeared.

Have you been following the case in Ireland? Which had no abortion or any form of birth control in the 50s & 60s? Orphanages where 800+ bodies of tiny babies have been dug up. Sanctity of life, yeah.

OK, you win.

Well, if Roy Moore gets elected, he will get to join the club. We (the tax payers) have been paying out harassment hush money on behalf of scumbag congress people and staff for 17 years. Perhaps he wants to get elected so he can pay off the people accusing him.

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3603 ... shush-fund

Well, here we go!

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-t ... l-franken/

So bob, does Franken deserve to be a US Senator? Are you disturbed by the people of Minnesota?

I'll say again what I believe. The people that put themselves up for election are not the best and brightest. They are people who are interested in power or are controlled by the people currently in power. The only thing we can do is limit the power we allow them to exercise. Because they are supposed to represent us, not rule us.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go!

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-t ... l-franken/

So bob, does Franken deserve to be a US Senator? Are you disturbed by the people of Minnesota?

I'll say again what I believe. The people that put themselves up for election are not the best and brightest. They are people who are interested in power or are controlled by the people currently in power. The only thing we can do is limit the power we allow them to exercise. Because they are supposed to represent us, not rule us.

I'm not disturbed by the people of Minnesota, who didn't know about this when they voted for Franken.

If this was an isolated incident, I don't think he needs to step down. If not, I'm sure we'll find out shortly.

We'll await further developments but I seriously doubt I'll be supporting his re-election in 2020. --Bob