You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: I Like It! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I Like It!
Extend it to politicans as well...any pol convicted of corruption isn't allowed within 2500 miles of Washington!! Could solve a lot of our problems.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -California Supreme Court upholds law restricting where sex offenders live Newsjock  Feb-01-10 09:23 PM   #0 
  - Why would anybody object to that? n/t  napi21   Feb-01-10 09:25 PM   #1 
  - Because it works pretty absurdly in practice, and there's little evidence that it's effective. n/t  Unvanguard   Feb-01-10 09:28 PM   #2 
  - Part of it is the definition of 'sex offender'  Neecy   Feb-01-10 09:30 PM   #3 
  - I agreer with your point about the 15 yr. That's extremely unreasonable!  napi21   Feb-01-10 09:45 PM   #4 
  - 2 problems  Hydra   Feb-01-10 10:20 PM   #5 
  - Something to think about...  Realityhack   Feb-02-10 02:05 PM   #31 
  - What state has that law?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-02-10 01:18 AM   #6 
  - Many.  TheMadMonk   Feb-02-10 01:51 AM   #8 
     - I haven't seen a case where a 16 yo was charged for admittedly consensual sex with a 15 yo.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-02-10 03:24 AM   #9 
        - The example was on DU about a year ago  Neecy   Feb-02-10 08:00 AM   #17 
        - Such cases have been reported and commented on here.  TheMadMonk   Feb-02-10 08:45 AM   #19 
        - Close enough?  dem629   Feb-02-10 08:53 AM   #21 
           - That's bizarre. At least the legislature changed the law.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-02-10 12:22 PM   #26 
  - it seems pretty difficult in my town as well  hfojvt   Feb-02-10 01:27 AM   #7 
  - no reasonable person would. fuck sex offenders. don't care how they live. just not near me and mine.  1   Feb-02-10 03:52 AM   #10 
     - Wow you really read up on this issue.  Realityhack   Feb-02-10 02:10 PM   #34 
  - When Is Enough Punishment Enough?  KharmaTrain   Feb-02-10 03:56 AM   #11 
  - i can tell you have no children. just sayin'...  1   Feb-02-10 04:00 AM   #12 
  - Wrong...  KharmaTrain   Feb-02-10 04:15 AM   #13 
  - i am so happy your children were not violated by sex offenders. i truly am...  1   Feb-02-10 04:22 AM   #14 
     - Projection Rating: D-  KharmaTrain   Feb-02-10 04:30 AM   #15 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-02-10 04:43 AM   #16 
           - If your posts are the truth and not just an internet act  TransitJohn   Feb-02-10 08:56 AM   #23 
           - How old are you mate?  TheMadMonk   Feb-02-10 09:49 AM   #25 
           - +1 very well put.  Realityhack   Feb-02-10 02:14 PM   #36 
           - Do you agree that our laws should apply equally?  NutmegYankee   Feb-02-10 04:15 PM   #39 
  - I can tell you make extremely rash judgements. Just sayin'. NT  EOTE   Feb-02-10 02:06 PM   #32 
  - What does that have to do with anything?  Raineyb   Feb-02-10 02:08 PM   #33 
  - It's not a punishment for the criminal -- it's a protection for the rest of us  Freddie Stubbs   Feb-02-10 08:08 AM   #18 
     - It's a false sense of protection  tammywammy   Feb-02-10 08:49 AM   #20 
     - Perhaps most, but certainly not all  Freddie Stubbs   Feb-03-10 09:00 AM   #40 
        - Yes, but if you make it to where sex offenders can't live anywhere they'll just stop registering  tammywammy   Feb-03-10 07:24 PM   #41 
           - There are plenty of places to live that are not within 2000 feet of a school or park  Freddie Stubbs   Feb-04-10 09:53 AM   #42 
     - No it's not. It's the appearance of protection for the rest of us.  TheMadMonk   Feb-02-10 08:53 AM   #22 
     - This Does Not Condone Sexual Predators  KharmaTrain   Feb-02-10 08:56 AM   #24 
     - I love it! "Lehman's Law"!  KamaAina   Feb-02-10 12:36 PM   #27 
        - I Like It!  KharmaTrain   Feb-02-10 01:25 PM   #28 
           - They'd all just end up in Wasilla  KamaAina   Feb-02-10 01:28 PM   #29 
     - No it's the APPEARANCE of protection.  Raineyb   Feb-02-10 02:10 PM   #35 
     - Please describe in detail exactly how anyone is protected. n/t  Realityhack   Feb-02-10 02:15 PM   #37 
  - I'm suprised that it wasn't challenged on the grounds of being racist and discriminatory.  Xithras   Feb-02-10 01:48 PM   #30 
     - Couldn't it still be?  Realityhack   Feb-02-10 02:17 PM   #38 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC