arma virumque cano (et alia)
Is it possible that Teddy Teabagz could be even less relevant than Greg Camp?
I'm missing something... I never heard anything about Ted Nugent being a child molester. Care to back that up? Not because I don't believe you, but those are some pretty serious allegations there.
It matters not whether or not he committed such vile acts (molestation), but whether others (peers) seek to define him as such.It may not be reality, but it is The Truth.
That statement worries me on a couple of different levels. Thank god you're not in power.
Don't be too sure of yourself...........
E.N., the truth is a statement that corresponds to reality. The claim, Ted Nugent is a child molester, is either true or false. Determining that requires evidence. It's no surprise that you and Goldilocks don't understand this.Alan, notice how the control freak side thinks. Facts are irrelevant. All statements must fit the accepted narrative to be true.
Obviously you are not in power, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to speak online in a purposefully aggravating manner, or make sly references to your non-existent 'position'.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aside from my embarrassing internet faux pass, Mr. Camp, let me question this- where do you get your facts from? Unless you were there, on the scene of the referenced incident, you get it from someone else. When you filter news reports down, you get heresay- and it's even worse online. So why are your 'facts' more legitimate than your sovereign nation's 'narrative'?
Mark, the legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. If X is accused of molesting a child, produce the child. Show that X and the child were together. Find witnesses or records that establish this. Otherwise, you're correct that we can't know what really happened. Making an accusation without taking the trouble to prove it only creates doubt in the minds of people who don't have the time or brains or inclination to investigate the matter.
Yes, the current situation (in the United States) requires that the act in question (Nugent engaging in prohibited contact with a person under 18), must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the State to inflict criminal penalties , however it is possible that Nugent may find himself subject to civil suit, or find himself in a foreign country such as Syria or the PRC, where such unreasonable and dangerous restrictions do not apply.
I knew he was a draft dodger, and come to think about it he does encourage kids to love and use guns. Also, he favors those lax gun laws which are responsible for all the kid shootings. So,...
So, Mikeb, you've got nothing.E.N., praising Syria and Communist China isn't helping your cause. Of course, nothing could help your cause.
I think you missed the point of my last comment, Mr. Camp: I happen to agree with you. The Government didn't find anything illegal with Mr. Nugent's contact with said minor, and therefore, it is misleading to classify him as a 'child molester'. At the same time, I do believe we can agree that there is something fundamentally unusual about a thirty-year old man having a liaison with a girl the age of seventeen.
That creates suspicion, to be sure. I'm not a Nugent fan and haven't followed his life in any detail. Of course, if the girl was seventeen, that would be statutory rape, depending on the age of consent in the jurisdiction, not child molestation. The latter is generally reserved for acts with someone under the age of fourteen.
I wonder if Nugent could be prosecuted under the Federal PROTECT act?Greg, do you think this demonstrates the need to standardize the legal codes and (among other things) set the national age of consent at 18 or 21, making statutory rape a 1st or 2nd degree felony if difference in age exceeds 5-7 years, or acts involve a child under 16-14 a third degree if child is over 16 but still underage, and a forth degree felony if both actors are between 16 and 21 (or 18) and there is 2-3 years or less age difference? I believe that this is necessitated by the evolving standards of decency, and by the lack of cohesive order inherent in statutory diversity between states.There you go, no "anti-gun" or "tyrant praising" in that post.
For once, E.N., I agree with you, in part. Criminalizing sex between teenagers is a bad idea. They're going to do it anyway, but that would just add another thing that could give them a criminal record. But there needs to be a sharp line between child and adult, and if there's more than say a five year difference in age when one person is under age, yes, that should be a felony.
The two U.S. States which come closest to the concept I described above are Wisconsin and (rather curiously) California. California sets the legal age at 18 and regards such illicit conduct as a misdemeanor, provided the difference in the ages is less than 3 years (if two such persons are married -a terrible idea- they are exempt from prosecution). Wisconsin also sets the legal age at 18, however all such contact is a major Felony (if child is under 16, parents may also be charged with a Felony and Marriage is NOT a defense in court). No State currently sets the age of consent at 21, although considering Mississippi and Puerto Rico, set the age of majority (a separate legal concept) at 21, Alabama and Nebraska set the age of majority at 19, it would be prudent for a Federal statute to address such as the threshold of legal consent.What's wrong with giving young persons a criminal record? If they are labeled as Felons early, their propensity to cause society harm will be reduced. This is generally the accepted notion among many conservatives.
A criminal record is a permanent stain. I don't agree with criminalizing things that aren't harming others and can be dealt with in better ways.
Greg: "So, Mikeb, you've got nothing."I learned everything I need to know about this in Jadegold's later post. Shame on you for defending the child-molesting, draft-dodging, illegal-hunting blowhard.
Being precise about describing a person's actions is not the same thing as defending those actions. Shame on you for being so sloppy in your thinking.
Ted Nugent certainly has a way with words.Regardless of what you think about Ted, the problem is that the U.S. has turned into a country of selfish people who abhor responsibility and are happy to take life, liberty, and property from others -- either directly through their own actions or indirectly with government as the middleman. And now that such people constitute a majority, there is no recovering from the downward spiral. The great experiment that was the U.S. is over.
And yet remember- even assuming the U.S. doesn't survive the next four years...Less than two thousand years ago, another republic fell to tyranny. Eight hundred years ago, a group of nobles came together, partially inspired by said republic, and limited the power of the monarchy. Less than three hundred years ago, a nation was born based on the same ideals set by the Roman Republic. Ideas never really die, and there are always those willing to stand by concepts such as freedom, the equality of mankind, and the rule of law.
This being the case, I have no interest any more in trying to reach people. They can wallow in the living hell that will ensue. Of course once our government has finished taking away all of the money (why stop at 40% to 50%?) from "rich people" (anyone making more than $50,000 per year), everyone can starve to death.Don't think this is possible? Just think of a "spoiled brat child" -- and then imagine what life would be like if most of the adults in our country were "spoiled brat children" in adult bodies. That's where we are today. And we all know that spoiled brats don't get better as they get older, they get worse.
I think the main problem with people is that they don't realize how good they have it compared with most of the world... it's like they have forgotten they live in a first-world country. Widespread, crippling poverty doesn't really exist in the U.S. anymore, but some people haven't gotten the memo.Now, that said, forgive me for my next point; I'm not going to lose any sleep if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Larry Ellison have to pay more in taxes than your average working stiff.
Here, Alan, we agree. The wealthy in this country have benefitted from a system that works well for most people. The fact that we have to pay for that system is no cause for whining about socialism. On your other point, I agree as well. Ideas last. I hope America isn't finished as a nation of personal liberties, but that idea will surface again and again, no matter how many times it gets repressed.
You forget seem to forget that the pre-Reagan income taxes where set at 70% for top earners. Previously to the 70% maximum rate, it was as much as 90-94%. Thank you for ceasing to disperse your seditious lies. Without people like you, all of the peasants would be free from oneself.As a side note......... Watch "Mugabe and the White African"You would sincerely enjoy it, especially you Greg.It relates to your newly re-lost cause (individual freedom) and the struggle against subjugation.
I'm not stopping, E.N. You're the one who spouts ideas that are antithetical to American values. Here you add Mugabe to the discussion? There's such a good example of a leader from your point of view. You'll be shocked to learn that you're not getting much agreement in this country, I'm sure.
When I call you a "mere peasant", I am simply catering to your stereotype (that of a "tyrannical" figure) which you apply to anyone who suggests reasonable reform and regulation.
E.N., you're expressing an evil point of view. If it's not yours, you should indicate it as such.