17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2012 07:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Peking

The Chinese weren't threatening military action because we were honouring the treaty.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2012 09:43 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Peking

The Chinese weren't threatening military action because
we were honouring the treaty.
I was referring to the lamentable lack of English courage to hold on to their own property
(not referring to the 99 year lease of the New Territories) when thay GAVE IT AWAY in a treaty in 1984,
as I referred to it in my post.

By treaties of the 18OOs, Hong Kong and Kowloon
were the permanent property of England,
kinda like Liverpool, but not as close.
In fairness, it is to Mrs. Thatcher's credit that she rescued
the citizens of Hong Kong n Kowloon from communism for 5O years.
Presumably, by then communism will be only a foul & repugnant memory, like nazism.
Obviously, capitalism is held in high esteem by the newer generation of Chinese bosses, as of now.

I do not believe that the Red Chinese ever threatened violence
toward Hong Kong; if thay had done so, then the English 'd have had
to decide whether Hong Kong n Kowloon meant as much to them as the Falklands.





David
izzythepush
 
  0  
Tue 19 Jun, 2012 11:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Thatcher was thoroughly evil, I thought you knew that.
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 19 Jun, 2012 01:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Back to the subject of the insane US CP laws let placed 20 percents of teenagers both male and female into the so call criminal justice system over sexting.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765583658/As-many-as-20-of-teens-have-sexted.html?pg=all

SALT LAKE CITY — As many as one in five teenagers has sent an explicit photo of himself or herself to others. And twice that many report they've received such photos, according to a new study lead by University of Utah researchers. Of those teens, a significant number don't recognize the potential for serious emotional and even legal consequences.

But even many of those who know there are potential consequences say they still "sext."

Most studies on sexting ask about sharing explicit or provocative photos. The new study considered only sharing of explicit photos, said lead researcher Donald S. Strassberg, professor of psychology. "Provocative doesn't get kids into legal trouble. Nude pictures can. We asked about sending sexually explicit photos to other teens or to adults."

The research has just been published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The researchers surveyed more than 600 students at a private high school in the Southwest. Students answered questionnaires anonymously with parental permission. When the researchers followed up by comparing the findings against a survey of 1,200 college students about their own previous high school sexting practices, they found very similar results, lending credence to the numbers, he said. "We think it is generalizable" to the broader high school-age population.

About 18 percent of the students, both girls and boys, some as young as 14, said they had sent images of themselves that were explicit, using cell phones. Asked how many received them, about 30 percent of the teenage girls had, while half the boys said they'd received such images. The difference between the number sending and the number receiving is probably because of "forwards," Strassberg said.

When the researchers asked the students, all freshman to senior age, what they thought the possible legal consequences of sexting were, many left it blank. "Our best guess is that most don't really appreciate what the legal consequences could be," he said. But almost a third said they continued to sext despite believing there could be serious legal ramifications.

"It's like texting while driving," said Strassberg. "Most don't recognize the seriousness. But if they do, they somehow don't think it will happen to them. They feel special in some way. But there are serious legal consequences and most don't know it."

Actual charges that have been filed in sexting cases: In some jurisdictions, kids sending sexually explicit pictures of a minor could be charged with trafficking in child pornography, even if sending a picture of himself or herself. And having such a photo on a phone or computer — something many of the surveyed youths didn't recognize — could lead to criminal charges, too. "It's not my fault if someone sends it to me" was a common attitude that failed to recognize that reality, Strassberg said. Some, though not all, jurisdictions level a charge of possessing child pornography, he noted.

There have been cases where youths who were sexting faced the possibility of being listed on a sex-offender registry, as well.

Adults face prison time for having such images.

The most dire potential consequences are not legal, but psychosocial. At least two American adolescent girls killed themselves after their boyfriends forwarded the photos they provided of themselves once the pairs split up.

Experts say such images frequently, perhaps even usually, outlast the romances that sparked them.

The researchers said that parents need to step up and have the conversations with their kids that will fully inform them about the dangers. And schools should address it as well.

"To pretend this is a rare event — that hardly anybody is sending or getting these pictures — is not true," Strassberg warned.

Because of the importance of the topic, the journal is making the full study available to anyone who wants it at no charge for 30 days.

Other researchers listed on the paper are Ryan K. McKinnon and M.A. Sustaita, also of the University of Utah, and Jordan Rullo of the University of Minnesota Medical School.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 03:10 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
So who the slave master here
The communists, specificly Castro were the slave masters,
raping all of their victims out of all of their natural rights.



BillRM wrote:
that we should had used our military forces to imposes the form of government
we would be happy with on the Cuban people?
Well, it was part of the Third World War; i.e., therefore, a defensive situation.


BillRM wrote:
A government that would surely had placed our interests
over the interests of the Cuban people if they knew what were best for them.
How 's that, again ?




BillRM wrote:
It is amusing that I would had been for that solution in the light of and during the cold war years
however I would not have been talking about freedoms for the Cuban people but our national interests instead.
Well, our interests co-incided.
See my last answer, hereinabove.



BillRM wrote:
In any case chains are fine for the Cuban people as long as it our chains
it would seems at least as far as you are concern David.
No. I 'd free them, including Elian and his child-molesting grandparents
(about whom u persistently do NOT comment).
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 04:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Well, our interests co-incided.
See my last answer, hereinabove


Bullshit just ask the citizens of most South American counties where we had installed and maintain dictators to do our biddings for generations.

The only differences between the kind and form of the government we would had installed in Cuba if we could had in the 1960s and the government that now exist would be that they would do our biddings not the USSR biddings.

There would have been no freedoms for Cubans to piss off a US back government in Cuba then there are now to piss off the current government and the jails and prisons would be just as full if not far fuller.

If history of the others countries of south american are an indication more not less people would just disappear never to be seen in this world again.

Google such terms as dirty wars and South American for more details of what living under one of the governments we had installed happen to had been like.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 09:07 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
Well, our interests co-incided.
See my last answer, hereinabove
BillRM wrote:
Bullshit just ask the citizens of most South American counties
where we had installed and maintain dictators to do our biddings for generations.
Thay were our allies against the commies
in the 3rd World War,
but thay did not do our bidding, in their domestic policy
(e.g., Manuel Noriega, or General Augusto Pinochet, blessed be his name).




BillRM wrote:
The only differences between the kind of the government we would had installed in Cuba if we could had in the 1960s
and the government that now exist would be that they would do our biddings not the USSR biddings.
So u think that Batista did our bidding, do u ??
(not that there is anything rong with that)



BillRM wrote:
There would have been no freedoms for Cubans to piss off a US back government in Cuba then there are now
to piss off the current government and the jails and prisons would be just as full if not far fuller.
No; in that kind of government,
a citizen was free, as long as he did not try to overthrow the local leader.
Except for that, the local government did not give a damn
and it left him to lead his own life in peace.





BillRM wrote:
If history of the others countries of south american are an indication
more not less people would just disappear never to be seen in this world again.
That was a weapon, a strategy,
that was successfully used against the communist enemy.
I LOVE that and I fully support that,
as part of the anti-communist war effort.
In retrospect, I wish that I had sent money
to help support that anti-communist effort.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 10:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You have an odd way to consider what is freedom and slavery and I would guess those men and women who was placed for example on US supply helicopters without even a hearing to be dump from 5,000 feet into the ocean or their family might disagree with you as I do.

As far as those nations dictators not following our orders we send in the marines when that happen assuming we can not get others to do the dirty work of killing the disobeying dictator for us.

Let see in South Vietnam we have their own military removed and kill the then country "president" and his brother who was not following our orders.

In the nation of Panama the dictator Noriega who had been on the CIA payroll for decades did not follow our orders so we needed to send in our military to removed him.

Sorry but we had been slave masters when it seems to be in our best interests as must as any other country including the former USSR.

Footnote if you are a dictator do not hire an American company to provide your body guards or you can find one day that the state department had order them to leave and let your ass hanging in the wind.

BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 10:45 am
@BillRM,
Second footnote to US sponsor dictators do not take up the US offer to have your military leadership train in the US as most of them by the time they return will be in the pocket of the CIA.

gungasnake
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 11:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The problem with Batista as I've heard it is that 80% of the Cuban people were outside the system. You had fifteen or twenty percent of the population which was thriving and everybody else was just getting by at all.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 01:57 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The problem with Batista as I've heard it is that 80% of the Cuban people were outside the system.
That sounds anarchistic.
That 's not necessarily a bad thing;
woud that thay were STILL out of the system NOW!!!




gungasnake wrote:
You had fifteen or twenty percent of the population
which was thriving and everybody else was just getting by at all.
Well, its a third world country.
What coud thay expect ?





David
gungasnake
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You can't expect the population of any nation to support a government which is telling 80% of the people to **** off and die.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:27 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
You have an odd way to consider what is freedom and slavery
It is not odd.
Subjecting them to totalitarianism (even as to their MINDs),
screwing them out of all of their natural rights, free speech, etc.
as recognized in the Bill of Rights. Thay were deemed property of the communists.
That is slavery; its not odd.




BillRM wrote:
and I would guess those men and women who was placed for example on US supply helicopters
without even a hearing to be dump from 5,000 feet into the ocean or their family might disagree with you as I do.
If that is what thay did to the commies,
then of that, I APPROVE!



BillRM wrote:
As far as those nations dictators not following our orders we send in the marines
Do u disapprove of Reagan 's invasion of Grenada?
His overthrow of the communists ?
Did u oppose freedom for the Grenadiers ?



BillRM wrote:
when that happen assuming we can not get others to do the dirty work
of killing the disobeying dictator for us.
Fighting the 3rd World War aggressively and successfully is what I cared about.
We needed to kill commies. Sometimes we did it.





BillRM wrote:
Let see in South Vietnam we have their own military removed and kill the then country "president"
and his brother who was not following our orders.
Diem?? He & his wife were too anti-communist for Kennedy.
I wish Kennedy had been removed from office, after impeachment.




BillRM wrote:
In the nation of Panama the dictator Noriega who
had been on the CIA payroll for decades did not follow our orders
so we needed to send in our military to removed him.
Yeah; Bush was mad at him in regard to drugs.
I did not care. I disagreed with that invasion; useless.





BillRM wrote:
Sorry but we had been slave masters
when it seems to be in our best interests
as must as any other country including the former USSR.
U have a ODD definition of "slave masters".




BillRM wrote:
Footnote if you are a dictator do not hire an American company to provide your body guards
or you can find one day that the state department had order them to leave
and let your ass hanging in the wind.
Thay need not obay the State Dept.
A lot of people don 't.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:29 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Second footnote to US sponsor dictators do not take up the US offer
to have your military leadership train in the US as most of them
by the time they return will be in the pocket of the CIA.
Sounds good to me,
as long as the government is not in liberal hands.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:31 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
You can't expect the population of any nation to support a government
which is telling 80% of the people to **** off and die.
I don 't think that Batista told them ANYTHING
other than not to make trouble.





David
gungasnake
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 03:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Just what I've heard and read... What I hear about Castro's regime is that the people who are productive and/or do any sort of useful work became a permanent voting minority, which is the thing we're in danger of now.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jun, 2012 11:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It is not odd.
Subjecting them to totalitarianism (even as to their MINDs),
screwing them out of all of their natural rights, free speech, etc.
as recognized in the Bill of Rights. Thay were deemed property of the communists.
That is slavery; its not odd.




And the right wing governments that are/was worst or at least no better then the current Cuba government?

You do not care about freedoms for others just that they do not live under any government that you do not care for.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jun, 2012 01:29 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Thatcher was thoroughly evil, I thought you knew that.
I don't know that and I hold a better opinion of her
than that, tho GIVING AWAY Hong Kong in 1984 was evil.

Y do u dislike her ?





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jun, 2012 01:38 pm
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
It is not odd.
Subjecting them to totalitarianism (even as to their MINDs),
screwing them out of all of their natural rights, free speech, etc.
as recognized in the Bill of Rights. Thay were deemed property of the communists.
That is slavery; its not odd.
BillRM wrote:
And the right wing governments that are/was worst or at least no better then the current Cuba government?
Thay were like Heaven,
relative to the hell of communism.
Thay asked only that the citizens make no political trouble.
Thay were not totalitarian; communist slavery was.



BillRM wrote:
You do not care about freedoms for others
just that they do not live under any government that you do not care for.
Not exactly, tho metastatic communism was a singular danger of enslaving the world.

The 3rd World War is over now, as of Christmas of 1991. We won.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Fri 22 Jun, 2012 01:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
What she did to the mining industry will do for starters, there's also the mass privatisation of utilities, forcing up the cost of living.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 04:23:35