#Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship

[Zepp]

Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship


[Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
By Judd Legum
May 18, 2013
Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)
A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
sex relationship with another student.
Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15. According
to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, just
after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest
of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a
person 12-16 years old.”
Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:

They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter
“made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic]
that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.

But Kaitlyn’s problems did not end there. Her girlfriends’s parents
appealed to the school board and had her expelled from Sebastian River
High School. Kaitlyn’s mom reports that the State Attorney, Brian
Workman, has offered Kaitlyn a plea deal of “of two years house arrest
and one year probation.” Kaitlyn has until next Friday to accept the plea
deal or face a trial.
The family has started a petition calling on the state attorney to drop
the charges against Kaitlyn.

--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

[Hell Stomper]

> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

>
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

bullshit

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:22:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>
>Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
>
>[Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
>By Judd Legum
>May 18, 2013
>Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)
>A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
>felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
>sex relationship with another student.
>Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
>school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15.

Sorry, but Clintons post-Monica statutory-'rape' laws
apply across the board. Funny thing, he SOLD 'em
as a way of slowing the explosion of 'welfare babies'
(ie 'black babies') ... but the laws rarely seem to be
used that way at all since it'd be "racist".

[David Hartung]

On 05/18/2013 09:22 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
>
> [Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
> By Judd Legum
> May 18, 2013
> Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)
> A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
> felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
> sex relationship with another student.
> Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
> school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15. According
> to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, just
> after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest
> of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a
> person 12-16 years old.”
> Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:

No, they were motivated by a desire to protect a minor child from being
sexually molested. If an 18 year old male were having sex with a 15 year
old female in a similar situation, the make would have been arrested and
charged. Why should it be any different just because both individuals
are female. The 15 year old female is below the age of consent, and the
18 year old female is now going to suffer the consequences of her poor
choices.

[wy]

On 19 May, 06:23, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 09:22 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
> > [Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
> > By Judd Legum
> > May 18, 2013
> > Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)
> > A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
> > felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
> > sex relationship with another student.
> > Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
> > school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15. According
> > to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, just
> > after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest
> > of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a
> > person 12-16 years old.”
> > Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:
>
> No, they were motivated by a desire to protect a minor child from being
> sexually molested. If an 18 year old male were having sex with a 15 year
> old female in a similar situation, the make would have been arrested and
> charged. Why should it be any different just because both individuals
> are female.

Right. Why should it be any different just because both individuals
are female and want to get legally married?

[Zepp]

California has the "18 month rule", in which an 18 year old is not
committing statuatory rape if the partner is less than 18 months
younger. It strikes me as a humane and fairly sensible way of dealing
with the fact that young people like to fuck young people.

[wy]

In Florida, if you're under 24 you can screw someone 16. Imagine
that, a 23-year-old just a day short of 24 can lay someone on their
16th birthday. But two girls 18 and 15? Like, would either one even
get pregnant as a result? In Canada, the age of consent used to be
14, because we were more smarter and more mature than the US. Not
that there was much of a problem with 14 to begin with, but the right
wingnut government came along and decided to change it to 16 with a
rather curious exemption: the law has a "close-in-age" exemption of
less than five years, which permits teens to engage in consensual sex
with a partner who is less than five years older as long as the older
partner is not in a position of trust or authority and the
relationship is not exploitive. It seems that someone 13 now can have
consensual sex with a 17-year-old who's a day shy of 18.

[Zepp]

What on earth do stat-rape laws have to do with Monica Lewinski? She was
25, you know.

[Zepp]

Five years strikes me as being fairly creepy. Of course, no hard-and-fast
rule is going to work for everyone and under all circumstances.

But it sounds like under Florida law, those parents have no legal
recourse, since the girls are less than two years apart in age. Sexual
battery, the charge made, would apply only if there was violence or
threat of violence involved. That would be the crux of the matter in
this case.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 8:04 AM, wy wrote:
> Right. Why should it be any different

Fuck off back to your canuckklehead groups, hoser.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 8:40 AM, wy wrote:
> In Florida, if you're under 24 you can screw someone 16.

Oh now I see why you're so obsessed with the US, you're a canuck pedo.

[wy]

On 19 May, 13:47, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 8:04 AM, wy wrote:
>
> > Right.  Why should it be any different
>
> Fuck

?

[wy]

On 19 May, 13:55, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 8:40 AM, wy wrote:
>
> > In Florida, if you're under 24 you can screw someone 16.
>
> Oh now I

?

[opel]

http://amplicate.com/hate/canada/5374268-like-being-raped-move-to-canada/

Like being Raped? Move to Canada
+10 by TorontoTruth I

Why do you hate Canada? Because The government of Canada loves to rape
and pillage the citizens of Canada, here no one cares about the
government, pay no attention what so ever, so they keep on rape us until
people actual stand up to this tyrant government. Fuck The queen to, get
off my money.

[opel]

http://amplicate.com/hate/canada/2372761-welcome-to-canada-the-new-third-world-country/

Welcome to Canada the new third world country!
+6 by John C

Why do you hate Canada? I hate Canada because the salaries suck
employment insurance sucks since we pay for it we should be able to use
it when we need it. the snow sucks!!! and the cost of living really
sucks everything here is to expensive and if a company that you work for
closes and doesn't pay you the governement will not help you so now you
know that Canada is full of shit!! it's like living in Mexico but
without the nice weather

[Mr. B1ack]

It was his " I'm *so* moral ! " legislation ... designed to make
him seem all puritan and anti-sex and concerned about poor
exploited pregnant teens and such. It's like Jimmy Swaggart
preaching fire-n-brimstone about 'sin' while he's bangin' cheap
hookers in crappy motel rooms ...

Unfortunately, Clintons 'sermon' became a one-size-fits-all
LAW. Did it stop 'black' men from knocking-up teenagers ?
Nope. Not at all. Did it put middle-class 'white' teens in jail
for 'sexting' and turning 18 before their boyfriend/girlfriend
also did in jail ? Yep !

[David Hartung]

1. We are not talking about California.

2. If one person is 18 and the other 15, there is more than 18 months
difference in age.

3. Unmarried young people have no business having sex, and our society
has no business making it easier for them to do so. If the law says that
a person is below the age of consent, then that is the case, no 18 month
rule is called for, or even appropriate.

[wy]

Funny, that's what you say about unmarried adults, too. Guess you
never got laid unmarried, huh? What a shock that must've been to your
supposed wife - "Dear, mein Herr Hartung, the clit isn't there, it's
here," to which Herr Hartung responds, "What's a clit?"

and our society
> has no business making it easier for them to do so.

Gee, then the society should never have thought of the internets. Get
a load of this, Hartung - I'm sure they're all of "age," according to
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance statement.:

http://stickamvids.net/omegle_videos/stickam-nude-girl-masturbate/

> If the law says that
> a person is below the age of consent, then that is the case, no 18 month
> rule is called for, or even appropriate.

Aww, man, Hartung, you're such a party pooper. No sex for the
kiddies, no sex for the adults, no sex for anyone unless they get
married and only for the purpose of having kids, which of course would
effectively destroy any idea of having any fun sex at all for the rest
of your life. Man, that's religious wacko Mississippi sick of you.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 6:46 PM, wy wrote:
> Aww, man,
http://amplicate.com/hate/canada/4375779-corrupt-federal-court-provincial-judges-police/

Corrupt Federal Court & Provincial Judges& Police
+6 by Major Nourhaghighi K

The Governmental of Canada, including all provincial and local
governments, are a worst Criminal Organization that instituted in
Canada. Except those who are simple servants and have no links to the
crimes; the Key Servants of the Crown, including many Judges, Police and
Lawyers, are the main cause of serve Hate toward the British, Queen and
Canada. For example, I, Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, in 1995 and 1996, I
discovered few Judges, Lawyers and Police were involved in smuggling of
Heroin from IRAN. I filed lawsuit T-1900-96 against the Crown. Chief
Justice Richard allowed my lawsuit. But, soon Nine members of Toronto
Police, 52 Div arrested me and tortured me at Old city Hall. Later, RCMP
was successful to charge Toronto Police for smuggling, conspiracy and
torture. However, the Crown, intentionally delayed the prosecution, and
corrupt Justice Ian Nordheimer stayed the prosecution. The reason that I
am calling Justice Ian Nordheimer as corrupt judge is that on the same
year, for the same cause of action, where I was the plaintiff, he did
not apply the same Charter principle that applied for corrupt police
constables. Another case, we all knew that the Attorney General of
Ontario, Michael Bryant, was drunk and while he was driving
intentionally killed a poor hardworking Canadian cyclist Darcy Sheppard.
Toronto Police charged him with Dangerous Driving, but the corrupt
Attorney General drop the charges, that even a KILLER did not stand
before a trial judge. SO, this Justice System and Government are NOT
here to protect People with the LAW under Constructional Rights. Strong
corporations like Banks, Rogers, Bell, Crown and hundreds other CAN
simple steal from People; Police and their agents can kill and torture
us, and WE have no "court" no "judge" to punish them and return our
damages... Simply search my name NOURHAGHIGHI in all Ontario and federal
Courts and read my pleadings and review hundreds of judgments that no
judges ever punished the criminals

[Zepp]

I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.

>
> Unfortunately, Clintons 'sermon' became a one-size-fits-all LAW. Did
> it stop 'black' men from knocking-up teenagers ?
> Nope. Not at all. Did it put middle-class 'white' teens in jail for
> 'sexting' and turning 18 before their boyfriend/girlfriend also did
> in jail ? Yep !

What legislation is this you've talking about?

[Zepp]

I've since learned that Florida has a FIVE=YEAR rule, which on paper
makes it legal for an 18 year old to boff a 13 year old. That strikes me
as fairly creepy.

What the parents have hit this girl with is "sexual battery". That's one
step below rape in the eyes of the law.

[wy]

On 19 May, 21:15, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 6:46 PM, wy wrote:> Aww, man,
>

> &

?

[wy]

It appears that the simplistic definition of battery is "the right to
have one's body left alone by others." Further, 3 elements are
required for it to be battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an
intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the
defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

Apparently, since it was all consensual, none of those would apply,
except (1) an act by a defendant, and even then if it was consensual,
there was no "act" of battery that occurred. The 5-year rule
involving 13-year-olds exists in Canada, not Florida, where it's
actually anyone under 24 who can engage with someone as young as 16.
Interestingly, Hartung's Mississippi has a younger legal age of
consent than Florida, 16 vs. 18. That Hartung sure knows where to
find the sin capitals in the US to live in.

[David Hartung]

And?

[David Hartung]

Something else to consider:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6759815_minor-dating-laws-florida.html
[...]
Under Florida law, a person, regardless of age, who engages in sexual
activity with a minor between the age of 12 and 16 commits lewd or
lascivious battery, a second degree felony. Similarly, a person who
fondles a minor under the age of 16 or requires the minor to fondle them
commits lewd or lascivious molestation, also a second degree felony.
[...]

More information:
http://www.sexlaws.org/answer_board_question-sex_law_0
[...]
(5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.

(a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner
the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing
covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or
entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator,
commits lewd or lascivious molestation.

(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious
molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age commits a life
felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082(3)(a)4.

(c)1. An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or
lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age; or

2. An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious
molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16
years of age

commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(d) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious
molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16
years of age commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
[...]

[wy]

Zepp, do you really have to waste your time and energy to explain this
to Hartung? That 80 IQ of his is borderline brain damage of the right
wingnut variety compounded by religious wackoness, there's no
ejakayting the supposed Preacher Man. He's a genetic defect, born
that way, living that way and will die that way. God programmed him
to be so, consequently he's one of life's little irritants on the
level of a bed bug.

[David Hartung]

And this:

http://www.florida-court-forms.net/age-of-consent.html
[...]
Romeo and Juliet Laws Enacted by Legislature

Yet, until 2007, there was little relief for teenagers who were caught
having consensual sex. The overly harsh sex offender laws evolved again,
and the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws were passed.

Florida Statute 943.04354, titled, Removal of the Requirement to
Register as a Sex Offender Under Certain Circumstances relieves many
teens of the requirement to register as sex offenders.

The statute states that a sex offender may be relieved from registration
requirements if, among other requirements:

c) Is not more than 4 years older than the victim of this violation
who was 14 years of age or older but not more than 17 years of age at
the time the person committed this violation.

Modified Age of Consent

So, a 14 year old and an 18 year old; up to a 17 year old and a 21 year
old; are allowed to have consensual intimate relationships, without fear
of the life time stigma of sex offender status.

This Romeo and Juliet law was passed quietly without fanfare. Changing
the age of consent was passed without the media frenzy that accompanies
stories of sex offenders stealing children in the night.

Many young registered sex offenders may not be aware that they can now
request they be relieved of the obligation to register as sex offenders.

The mechanism for requesting relief from the obligation to register is
within the statute.
[...]

[Zepp]

Four years, not five. I stand corrected.

[Zepp]

Actually he's been fairly reasonable in this thread. He dug up the
actual relevant laws regarding stat rape in Florida.

[Zepp]

I see where the defendant's lawyers say she will accept a misdemeanour
charge of child abuse. If they stay with a felony count of sexual battery
against a minor, she will fight it in court. That does leave me
wondering how consensual it was, and if it was, if the parents have
managed to turn the younger girl against her lover.

[David Hartung]

My other comments notwithstanding, this makes one wonder how this case
will be resolved.

[Zepp]

And I don't know what happens next. Court and defendant are considering
a plea bargain of some sort, but if that falls through, then it goes to
trial.

[wy]

Who are these parents, anyway? Do they make enough money to even be
able to cover court action over what could basically be nothing more
than a couple of kids having fun? I mean, seriously, this had been
going on for some time, just going by the claim that the two girls had
been dating for 6 months before the oldest one turned 18, meaning the
sex was happening when both were under 18 and probably with their ages
being about 18 months apart, going by the math. And wouldn't have the
parents known about this during those 6 months when the girls were
"dating"? If not, well, then, what's the real story here? It's not
as if there haven't been all sorts of cases where kids didn't want
their parents to know about who they are seeing or what they are
doing. Who knows, maybe the parents might've known about this all
along, but there's nothing in the article that says so. Of course, it
doesn't help that the parents are religious wackos on top of that, so
naturally they're going to go ballistic and use God at their every
means and disposal to right this "grievous wrong". All this will end
up doing is damage both girls, as the younger one will probably become
resentful of her religious wacko parents and turn rebellious and end
up becoming a stripper or hooker just to teach her parents a lesson as
to who's really boss, and the older one will have her life disrupted
one way or another over ... what? What was the real crime here? The
article is too vague too explain what more there may be beyond the
vagueness. But on the surface of it, it's much ado over nothing.
Florida should be paying attention to real crimes and criminals rather
than waste money on kids' stuff.

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:13:35 -0700, wy quacked:

> On 20 May, 01:41, quack:

>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:45:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

>> > On 05/19/2013 08:24 PM, quack:

>> >> On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:52:35 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>

>> >>> On 05/19/2013 09:23 AM, quack:

>> >>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:08 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>

>> >>>>> On 05/18/2013 09:22 PM, quack:

>>
>> >>>>>> Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian
>> >>>>>> Relationship
>>

>> >>>>>> [quack: Ah, Florida...]

Most socialist nations severely punish homosexuality, so keep that in
mind as you trash our evil capitalist system.

As for the Florida law in question here, it appears to have been passed
by a legislature duly elected by a MAJORITY of Florida voters. If
democracy is such a great thing, why is the democratic decision of the
majority of Florida voters being challenged?

I personally think this case is stupid and should be dismissed, but
people want a definite cut-off point for ages of sexual partners. 17 and
15 doesn't sound too bad, but then why not 25 and 11, or 75 and 3? The
"proper" age for sex is not a scientific issue, but a SOCIAL one. If the
majority of people in a society choose to define a "proper" age for sex,
is this not their right in a democracy? Why do you hate democracy?

[Steve]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:41:49 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>

It also got Bubba Clinton himself in some trouble..

[Mr. B1ack]

Gee Zepp ... takes a LOT of effor not to "get it" here .....

A severe case of Partisan Blindness perhaps ? :-)

>> Unfortunately, Clintons 'sermon' became a one-size-fits-all LAW. Did
>> it stop 'black' men from knocking-up teenagers ?
>> Nope. Not at all. Did it put middle-class 'white' teens in jail for
>> 'sexting' and turning 18 before their boyfriend/girlfriend also did
>> in jail ? Yep !
>
>What legislation is this you've talking about?

Wow ... utterly clue-less ......

'Statutory rape' USED to be 50 individual state laws.
Then the Monica thing was about to break and Clinton
pushed through an elaborate FEDERAL law so he'd
look good to the puritans. At the time, he declared it
was a law intended to keep (black) men from knocking
up (black) teens and producing welfare babies. The
lefty media mysteriously failed to note the implicitly
racist element ....

But the law is almost never used on poor 'blacks',
but on middle-class 'white' kids instead - just as
critics said it'd be.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:31:40 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

There were rumors of some teen queens in his
past ... but never proven. Probably quietly paid
off or intimidated ....

But the elaborate federal statute persists - beloved
of puritan bible-thumpers everywhere.

The Brits enacted a similar law ... and now some of
their top judges are saying "STOP THE MADNESS !"
as the laws have just become a license to scapegoat
males and burn 'em at the stake, mostly for being ...
well ... guys - not 'evil' per-se.

[Zepp]

Are you saying Clinton sponsored that type of legislation? When and
where?

[Zepp]

It's a criminal complaint. They don't need to put up any money. The
state pays.

I mean, seriously, this had been
> going on for some time, just going by the claim that the two girls had
> been dating for 6 months before the oldest one turned 18, meaning the
> sex was happening when both were under 18 and probably with their ages
> being about 18 months apart, going by the math.

Closer to 36 months, I make it. Still within Florida's '4 year' rule
governing stat rape.

And wouldn't have the
> parents known about this during those 6 months when the girls were
> "dating"? If not, well, then, what's the real story here?

That's what remains to be seen. The older girl's parents have timed it,
and made some remarks, that suggest their issue is homophobia. If so,
that will hardly matter to a court in a backward place like Florida, but
it will make the case a political football nationwide. Even without that
element, it will force a national look at the 'Romeo and Juliet' laws.

[David Hartung]

On 05/20/2013 08:15 AM, Zepp wrote:

> That's what remains to be seen. The older girl's parents have timed it,
> and made some remarks, that suggest their issue is homophobia. If so,
> that will hardly matter to a court in a backward place like Florida, but
> it will make the case a political football nationwide. Even without that
> element, it will force a national look at the 'Romeo and Juliet' laws.

It never fails, if a black person is involved in a crime, Liberals call
it a racial issue, now when homosexuals are involved, they call it
homophobia. This alone tells me that the whole thing is a non-issue.
Deal with the facts. Did the 198 year old young woman break the law or
not? If she did, punish her, if she didn't drop the charges and apologize.

[wy]

The state pays? Hey, that sounds like Socialism to me.

[wy]

Considering that racism and homophobia still exist, it only stands to
reason that those issues would be brought up as such. What, you think
you've been liberated from those fears long ago? Get real, Hartung.
You yourself are against gay marriage, hence, homophobia. You
yourself don't have any black members in your supposed congregation,
hence, you're a racist. Slam dunk, I win.

[Zepp]

Try reading what I wrote again. Pay attention this time.

[David Hartung]

OOPS! I meant 19 year old! :)

[Liberal Here]

On May 19, 10:04 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

> On 19 May, 06:23, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/18/2013 09:22 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> > > Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
> > > [Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
> > > By Judd Legum
> > > May 18, 2013
> > > Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)
> > > A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
> > > felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
> > > sex relationship with another student.
> > > Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
> > > school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15. According
> > > to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, just
> > > after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest
> > > of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a
> > > person 12-16 years old.”
> > > Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:
>
> > No, they were motivated by a desire to protect a minor child from being
> > sexually molested. If an 18 year old male were having sex with a 15 year
> > old female in a similar situation, the make would have been arrested and
> > charged. Why should it be any different just because both individuals
> > are female.
>

> Right.  Why should it be any different just because both individuals
> are female and want to get legally married?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The 15 year old female is below the age of consent, and the
> > 18 year old female is now going to suffer the consequences of her poor
> > choices.

The age issue is an attempt to protect the (assumed to be) immature
young girl from being talked into sex by an older male who's learned
better seduction techniques than a 17 year old boy. (Probably outdated
assumption today.) Lesbian sex does not lead to pregnancy unless both
are whiptail lizards (ain't no male Cnemidophorus whiptails).

[Liberal Here]

On May 19, 7:52 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/19/2013 09:23 AM, Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 05:23:08 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 05/18/2013 09:22 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> >>> Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
> >>> [Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
> >>> By Judd Legum May 18, 2013 Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook
> >>> Page)
> >>> A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
> >>> felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-
> >>> sex relationship with another student.
> >>> Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
> >>> school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15.
> >>> According to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in
> >>> February, just after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony
> >>> charges at the behest of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime
> >>> was “sexual battery on a person 12-16 years old.”
> >>> Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay
> >>> animus:
>
> >> No, they were motivated by a desire to protect a minor child from being
> >> sexually molested. If an 18 year old male were having sex with a 15 year
> >> old female in a similar situation, the make would have been arrested and
> >> charged. Why should it be any different just because both individuals

> >> are female. The 15 year old female is below the age of consent, and the

> >> 18 year old female is now going to suffer the consequences of her poor
> >> choices.
>

> > California has the "18 month rule", in which an 18 year old is not
> > committing statuatory rape if the partner is less than 18 months
> > younger.  It strikes me as a humane and fairly sensible way of dealing
> > with the fact that young people like to fuck young people.
>
> 1. We are not talking about California.
>
> 2. If one person is 18 and the other 15, there is more than 18 months
> difference in age.
>
> 3. Unmarried young people have no business having sex, and our society
> has no business making it easier for them to do so. If the law says that
> a person is below the age of consent, then that is the case, no 18 month
> rule is called for, or even appropriate.

Ummmmmm, according to your bibull, how old was Mary when she claimed
doG knocked her up? Was she married at the time???? Rational atheists
wanna know. Didn't that make Jesus a bastard???

Religious wackos have no business reproducing.

Maybe you need a history lesson, that covers biologic issues as well,
about sex and teenagers. Go ask your doG why he made teenagers so
horny.

[Liberal Here]

On May 19, 9:11 pm, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:41:49 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:

> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:24:14 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:19:49 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>

> >>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:22:46 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship
>
> >>>>[Zeppnote: Ah, Florida...]
> >>>>By Judd Legum May 18, 2013 Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook
> >>>>Page)
> >>>>A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a
> >>>>felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual,
> >>>>same-
> >>>>sex relationship with another student.
> >>>>Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the
> >>>>school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15.
>

> >>>    Sorry, but Clintons post-Monica statutory-'rape' laws apply across
> >>>    the board.  Funny thing, he SOLD 'em as a way of slowing the
> >>>    explosion of 'welfare babies' (ie 'black babies') ... but the laws
> >>>    rarely seem to be used that way at all since it'd be "racist".
>
> >>What on earth do stat-rape laws have to do with Monica Lewinski?  She
> >>was 25, you know.
>
> >    It was his " I'm *so* moral ! " legislation ... designed to make him
> >    seem all puritan and anti-sex and concerned about poor exploited
> >    pregnant teens and such.  It's like Jimmy Swaggart preaching
> >    fire-n-brimstone about 'sin' while he's bangin' cheap hookers in
> >    crappy motel rooms ...
>

> I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.

>
>
>
> >    Unfortunately, Clintons 'sermon' became a one-size-fits-all LAW. Did
> >    it stop 'black' men from knocking-up teenagers ?
> >    Nope. Not at all. Did it put middle-class 'white' teens in jail for
> >    'sexting' and turning 18 before their boyfriend/girlfriend also did
> >    in jail ? Yep !
>
> What legislation is this you've talking about?

FOX corporation rule of employee conduct, maybe?

[Liberal Here]

On May 20, 12:08 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:52:35 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
> >3. Unmarried young people have no business having sex, and our society
> >has no business making it easier for them to do so.
>

> Then why did God make it pleasurable?

To piss Hartung off.

[Liberal Here]

So you're implying that from 1827 to 2000, the US was a socialist
nation????

I suspect you think Sweden is a socialist nation....Sweden legalised
same-sex sexual activity in 1944. Go figure.

My "take"? You are congenitally unable to distinguish authoritarian
rule (controlling both economics and sex) from socialism in a
democratic nation

>
> As for the Florida law in question here, it appears to have been passed
> by a legislature duly elected by a MAJORITY of Florida voters.  If
> democracy is such a great thing, why is the democratic decision of the
> majority of Florida voters being challenged?

Hmmmmm, good question.....oh wait....American principle: PROTECTION OF
MINORITIES. Gee, that wasn't hard to figure out. Well, of course it is
for a fascist reichtard wacko.

>
> I personally think this case is stupid and should be dismissed, but
> people want a definite cut-off point for ages of sexual partners.  17 and
> 15 doesn't sound too bad, but then why not 25 and 11, or 75 and 3?

Ahhhhhhhh, a little thought and even **YOU*** figure out how "majority
rule" is not necessarily a good principle in all situations.

[Liberal Here]

On May 20, 8:08 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:31:40 -0400, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:41:49 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
> >wrote:

>
> >>On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:24:14 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:19:49 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>

Stop talkin' 'bout bush 1/2's college days.......

[Zepp]

I don't have any issue with consent laws (I think that 16 is a more
realistic age, but in the US it's generally 18), but they are a relative
innovation. Prior to 1920, age of consent was generally 11 or 12,
reflecting the age when a girl was considered marrying age.

[Zepp]

It's ok if you use a loofah and shout "surprise!"?

[Zepp]

Well, that's why it's going to court. Believe it or not, David, courts
actually are supposed to try and determine if someone broke the law. I
know it's different in right wing world, where you get the conviction
first and figure out what laws the target may have broken later, but out
here in the reality-based community it doesn't work that way.

[David Hartung]

>> Maybe you need a history lesson, that covers biologic issues as well,e

>> about sex and teenagers. Go ask your doG why he made teenagers so horny.
>
> I don't have any issue with consent laws (I think that 16 is a more
> realistic age, but in the US it's generally 18), but they are a relative
> innovation. Prior to 1920, age of consent was generally 11 or 12,
> reflecting the age when a girl was considered marrying age.

Which really has nothing to do with the current situation. Age of
consent laws are designed to protect children from predatory adults.
Whatever the age, one who breaks the law should be dealt with.

[Zepp]

But you oppose Romeo and Juliet laws, which protected boys from
disapproving adults if they turned eighteen a few days or weeks ahead of
their girlfriends.

Why is that?

[David Hartung]

Boys should learn to keep it in their pants. If they cannot go without
for a few weeks or months, they have more serious problems than
disapproving parents. This is called maturity and self control, and is
an important trait to have as one grows up.

By the way, you do know that I believe that those who are not married
have no business being sexually active? For that reason alone, I have
little sympathy for those such as the young lady in the article which
began this thread.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
news:Zdmdne6JvJPpUAfM...@giganews.com:

>
> By the way, you do know that I believe that those who are not married
> have no business being sexually active?

Were you a virgin until you married?

[Zepp]

Well, boys DON'T keep it in their pants, and that's human nature.

[David Hartung]

Those who truly respect their ladies can, and do.

[wy]

This is a classic case of Hartung refusing to live in the real world.

[wy]

On 20 May, 22:11, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote innews:Zdmdne6JvJPpUAfM...@giganews.com:

>
>
>
> > By the way, you do know that I believe that those who are not married
> > have no business being sexually active?
>
>     Were you a virgin until you married?

He was probably a virgin years afterwards. Maybe still is.

[wy]

You mean the same ladies you call whores for engaging in sex while not
even giving a scintilla of blame or insulting designation to the guys
who engage with them? Those "ladies"?

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:49 -0700, wy quacked:

> On 20 May, 23:26, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

>> On 05/20/2013 09:19 PM, quack:

I believe that consenting adults have a right to engage in prostitution.
Dianne Feinstein, one of the most prominent Democraps in the Senate, does
not share this view.

As mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein waged all-out war on prostitution
and adult entertainment. She even went undercover dressed as a hooker to
entrap men seeking to get laid.

Liberalism is generally defined as advocating personal freedom and
economic control, while conservatism is defined as economic freedom and
personal control. Dianne Feinstein seems to be both liberal and
conservative, seeking to outlaw the personal freedom to engage in
consensual sex, and also outlawing profiting from the same consensual
sexual agreement. This makes her a FASCIST.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Brothers_O%27Farrell_Theater

"In the 1980s, newly elected Mayor Dianne Feinstein walked into the
O'Farrell [porn theater] and said, 'I want to check this place out.' Jim
Mitchell, in the lobby at that moment, reportedly said, 'Sure, if you buy
a ticket.' Feinstein walked out. Soon after, raids occurred, ostensibly
to restore safety and health of exotic dancers and resulted in obscenity
charges being filed against the Mitchells. The brothers, apparently not
lacking a sense of humor, changed their marquee to read, 'For showtimes,
call...' and displayed Feinstein's unlisted phone number."

[Mitchell Holman]

wy <w...@myself.com> wrote in
news:1b2b4458-4297-4cf7...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On 20 May, 22:11, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote

>> innews:Zdmdne6JvJPpUAfMnZ2dnUVZ_q
> Wdn...@giganews.com:

>>
>>
>>
>> > By the way, you do know that I believe that those who are not
>> > married have no business being sexually active?
>>
>>     Were you a virgin until you married?
>
> He was probably a virgin years afterwards. Maybe still is.
>

When Al Franken was on radio he used always
ask callers pushing abstinency about their OWN
history with it. Never did get a straight answer
from them, we won't be getting one from Hartung
either.

[Lee]

So when the military hands out condoms to troops
they are encouraging them to "disrespect their ladies"?

[David Hartung]

If the troops are sexually active outside marriage, yes.

[Lee]

Single women using birth control are whores,
single men using birth control are...just guys
being guys, it seems.

[David Hartung]

One of these days the two of you will actually post something rational.
When you do, I will likely have a heart attack from the shock.

[Lee]

What does that say about all the troops overseas
using the free condoms handed out by the US government?


http://www.stripes.com/news/army-fights-stds-with-free-condoms-1.77691

[David Hartung]

The fact that American GIs have the reputation of screwing everything in
sight does not justify sexual activity outside of marriage. The best way
to avoid an STD is to not put yourself into a situation where you might
catch such a disease. When I was a young airman, that was a part of the
briefing I received as I in-processed at least one base. It was good
advice then, and it remains good advice.

[wy]

Yeah, that's what would kill Hartung - rationality. Must explain why
he keeps on living - he ignores rationality. But let's rewind the
tape, folks, why don't we?

Hartung’s response to Lee - May 14, 2013: 3:10 p.m.

"A college coed who wants the government to mandate the school supply
her with contraception so that she may have sex whenever she pleases
seems a rational description of a whore."

Yep, that's good old rational Hartung's mind hard at work right there
with his random thoughts. Notice the absence of any blame towards the
male gender, especially since they're accomplices to the crime. Nope,
nothing wrong with guys, they're just peachy-keen fine, only boys
being boys. But the women? Whores! All of them! Let them pay the
price of eternal damnation. It doesn't matter if she's got a
boyfriend and maybe engaged to be married, she's still a slut in
Hartung's eyes. But the guy, well, he wouldn't think twice of sitting
down and having a beer or two with him and chatting about football and
whatnot - nothing whorish about him at all, no sireee. Do we all get
a crystal clear picture of Hartung now? Well, of course, Hartung
himself still doesn't.

[Lee]

If being "sexually active outside marriage"
earns the label "whore" for women what label do
you think it earns for men doing the same thing?

[Lee]

Since you bring up your own past - where YOU
ever "sexually active outside marriage", as you
put it?

[opel]

On 5/21/2013 9:35 AM, wy wrote:
> Yeah, that's what would kill Hartung

Why don't you have any life of your own up in canuckistan?

[David Hartung]

If I say no, you will call me a liar, if I say yes you will call me a
hypocrite. This is not only an inappropriate question, it is a lose,
lose question. You will have to figure it out for yourself.

[wy]

On 21 May, 13:34, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 9:35 AM, wy wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that's what would kill Hartung
>
> Why

?

[wy]

It's only a lose-lose question, if you really don't have a winning
answer. So, yeah, I guess you lose.

[Lee]

You buttress your argument from tales of
your own experience. You are a Christian, so
I will accept your word. Have you ever been
sexually active outside of marriage, as you
term it?

[opel]

On 5/21/2013 12:32 PM, wy wrote:
> So, yeah, I guess you lose.

http://whymycountrysucks.com/category/north-america/canada/

11th Foot in 4 Years Washes Up On The Shores Of Vancouver Canada

[opel]

On 5/21/2013 12:31 PM, wy wrote:

> ?
>
http://whymycountrysucks.com/category/north-america/canada/

Canada Is The Only G8 Country Without Flood Protection For Homeowners

[opel]

On 5/20/2013 10:45 PM, wy wrote:
> Those "ladies"?

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17072

I really wonder to myself how Canadians, especially men can honestly say
they are happy here. Do they really think that out of everywhere on the
planet this is really the best they can do? There are so many places
where it is smaller, warmer, the girls are better, the food is better,
etc. Yes it is a good place to make money,just like the USA, as the
incomes and standards of living are about the same. But if you take
those things away, it loses it's appeal immediately. The only way Canada
will change is if perhaps the USA collapses and takes Canada with it.
The only other way would be for Canadian men to revolt against the
feminists until they win, but since people here are sheeple and too
passive that is very unlikely to happen. I would love to see it though.
If every man in Canada decided to stop paying child support and alimony
and refuse to get married it would have an effect. Recently students in
Quebec demonstrated against tuition hikes and won, so you never know
what can happen. Now I've go the HA mentality, everyday I live here I
like it less and less. I think the only advantage have had here is the
money I made, which will enable me to leave ASAP and hopefully for good.

So to sum things up, for those men who have never lived in Canada, I
find it a very strange and irritating place to live because: It is too
big and cold for my liking. Travel takes a very long time and costs a
lot of money. The weather is bitterly cold and depressing for at least
half of the year. The cold weather makes people stay inside and gives
them cold personalities, especially the girls. Since it is a matriarchy,
women are unofficially in charge and hold the power balance over men.
Men are too whipped to do anything about it. Most
women have little self respect and are not concerned with their public
appearance. They are often overweight,tattooed, smoke pot and
cigarettes, drink too much and dress poorly. They still think they are
irresistible to men even though they do all these masculine things. The
cost of doing business is very high because of the sheer size and small
population. Everything has to be in english and french and Quebec is
always threatening to separate from the rest of Canada. The CRTC imposes
silly and out-dated laws and rules on TV and radio programs. If you want
to enjoy US programming and services, you will hate it here. Things are
frequently much more expensive here compared with the same item in the
USA even if our dollars are at par. This is due to the vast distances, 2
languages, the CSA standards, a small population and industry wide price
fixing. People are sheeple and don't understand how someone can be
different than them. If you don't drink, smoke pot, have a lot debt and
useless material items, or if you think logically and are an introvert,
you will hate it here just like I do most of the time just like I do.

[opel]

On 5/20/2013 10:44 PM, wy wrote:
> He was probably a virgin years afterwards.

[opel]

On 5/20/2013 10:43 PM, wy wrote:
> This is a classic case

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17072

Canada, the second biggest country on Earth, is a pretty strange place
if you think really about it. It would take most people a while to
figure out why, so I'll make it easy and tell you in my opinion why,
backed up by facts. I've lived in various places in Canada for about 30
of my 40 years. although I was born in the Capital of Canada to Canadian
parents, my mindset and upbringing does not fit the mold of your
standard blue collar Canadian white guy, so I don't fit in here. My
father is Canadian born, but is the opposite of most people here, and
worked most of his life abroad due to his job. He is very educated, but
not used to dealing with the average Canadians like I am so has a
different view if things. Given his job he was used to dealing with the
elite of Canada and foreign countries. My mum is german born and that
had a huge influence on my life. When my parents first hired Filipina
maids 33 years ago, I connected with the culture there immediately and
fell in love with it after my first visit there.

You have to wonder why such an absolutely huge place, second only to
Russia in size, only has about 35 million people living there, most of
them near the US border. Yes, you guessed it, for half of the year,
Canada is a vast frozen wasteland of snow and ice, from east to west and
north to south. Most Canadians take this for granted and grin and bear
it, so most locals here are some pretty tough and hearty people. If you
don't like extreme cold however you will hate it here from about October
to April. Spring and fall are cool, but summer is usually very hot and
humid. The most mild climates are Victoria and Vancouver, where I live
and they are the only places I am prepared to live in Canada. The
problem is I no longer want to live in Vancouver, so that means the only
solution is to leave Canada.

I think that if Canada were the same size but in at a lower latitude,
it's population would be like the USA. Most Canadians brag about how big
the country is and how it is bigger than the USA. This is true, but I
would much rather have the USA as a territory to live in, it is only a
bit smaller and has mild climates all year round in southern areas.
Canada is like one big Alaska, and most of it is unlivable. Just look at
the northern territories of Canada, the area is huge and only 100,000
people live there. So the hostile weather has a huge reason on the small
population here. Just look at other countries with Canada's size, like
China, USA, and Brazil, they have huge populations. Canada's massive
size works against it, because it makes traveling areal time consuming
affair. It even has 6 time zones, so going somewhere usually involves a
long time and lot of money. So traveling or doing business here is a
real headache because you have a small population spread across a huge
area and a very hostile climate.

Canada's leader is a Woman and lives in another country. Most Canadians
themselves are not aware the the Supreme leader of Canada is the Queen
of England. Due to this, Canada is a well established matriarchy from
the very top down, just like most of the Commonwealth and Anglosphere.
About 95% of Canadian men are manginas and don't realize it. They think
that calling their wife the boss and having her in charge is totally
normal. In fact, in Canada, Womens and Mens roles are reversed from the
natural system. Women are in charge and look and act masculine like Men
do in Male power societies, and the Men act submissive like foreign
women do in male power societies. Most men here have never known
anything else, and assume this is the way it is everywhere. If they
stood up to their wife, she would divorce him and he would have to give
up half of what he owns and pay alimony just like in the USA. So
marriage here is fraud, but most men don't realize it because they are
so desperate to get a woman they sign the contract and become slaves.
Canada was recently picked as the best country in the world to be a
woman. They forgot to mention that any country where it is the best
place to be a woman is probably the worst place in the world to be a
man. Funny how they never write articles about the best countries in the
world to be a man, only the best place to be woman. I am now convinced
that if Afghanistan is the worst country in the world to be a woman,
Canada has to be the worst country in the world to be a man

The Natives that were living here for thousands of years before Canada
was "discovered", hate the white people and always have and will. They
hate all the other people from all over the world that decided to live
here also. Just like in the USA, the British and French that came here
500 years ago decimated the Native populations with war and disease, and
said tough luck if you don't like it. Just like in the USA, the Natives
here live in poverty on reservations. They have a much lower standard of
living than others and have low life expectancy, high unemployment, high
AIDS rate, high crime rate, high suicide rate, high drug and alcohol
rate and just about every other bad statistic you can think of. If you
were to go to a Native reservation in Canada, you would think that you
have just gone to a third world country. The native reservations are
absent from tourist brochures and travel guides. To make up for killing
most of them and ruining the lifestlye, culture, land and history the
Canadian government gives the natives tax free status and pretty much
anything else for free. They also always get lenient crime sentences
compared to others. This will never change. The natives will never like
the whites, or other immigrants and the immigrants will never get along
with the natives.

The French people will never get along with the English or other people,
and vice versa. The largest Province in Canada, Quebec is mostly French
speaking, and every 20 years or so they threaten to separate from Canada
and become a country called Quebec, not a province. Every time Canada
votes on if Quebec should separate or not, the separatists always lose,
and Canada stay together until another vote comes along some years
later. This will never change. They will never get along. For hundreds
of years England and France were bitter enemies in Europe and this
continues to show in Canada, where they have political and language
battles. Canada has French and English as official languages, so
everything has to be in both. It's especially bad in Quebec where they
actually have a "Language Police" that goes around making sure that
everything is in French first and then English. If you have a English
only sign, you face heavy fines and punishment. To realize how extreme
the language police get, a few years ago the Quebec government refused
to pay for a disabled Quebec woman's assistance dog because the dog only
understood commands in English and not French!

Canada is always trying to keep American culture out, an impossible feat
when the USA is your best friend and next door neighbor. Canada is
trying to establish it's own culture, and not have to much of an
influence from the USA. This will never succeed, the USA is simply too
strong and too close. Canada is always coming up with silly rules to
keep American culture out, and Canadians are always trying to find new
and creative ways to circumvent these laws. If you are an American and
are used to things you can easily get there, you will go crazy here.
Most things American are blocked or don't work here. Your satellite
system is illegal here, your video or audio streaming website won't work
unless you have a US IP address. Most websites you bought from in the
USA won't ship to Canada. Even the superbowl commercials are blocked. TV
and Radio has a 35% Canadian content rule. So for every 100 TV shows or
Songs on the Radio, 35 have to be Canadian. A thriving underground
market of ways to bypass all these laws exist. Most Canadians do a lot
of shopping in the USA, and have PO box addresses near the border to
have shipments sent too and then picked up there.

[opel]

On 5/21/2013 11:22 AM, Lee wrote:
> If being "sexually active outside marriage"
> earns the label "whore" for women what label do
> you think it earns for men doing the same thing?
>
>
>

Stud?

[Lee]

Mr. Hartung, I have already said I would accept
whatever answer you supplied, and I am sure as a
Christian you would tell the truth. Is there a
reason you are not responding?

[David Hartung]

When you have a question about me that I deem appropriate, I will answer it.

[wy]

Oooohhh, here that, Lee? When Lord Hartung deems "appropriate". This
coming from someone who says the most inappropriate things, especially
when it comes to women or, as he affectionately calls them, "whores".

[Liberal Here]

On May 20, 11:26 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 09:19 PM, Zepp wrote:

> > Well, boys DON'T keep it in their pants, and that's human nature.
>
> Those who truly respect their ladies can, and do.

No, only those who think sex is dirty and only should be attempted in
order to create a child. Thus the religious wacko idea that women are
unclean and nearly demonic.

You're a sick fuckhead.

[Liberal Here]

On May 21, 12:44 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On 20 May, 22:11, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>

> > David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote innews:Zdmdne6JvJPpUAfM...@giganews.com:

>
> > > By the way, you do know that I believe that those who are not married
> > > have no business being sexually active?
>

> >     Were you a virgin until you married?
>

> He was probably a virgin years afterwards.  Maybe still is.

I can't remember the name but there was a historical figure who on his
wedding night was so horrified to see pubic hair on his wife that he
never had sex.

Hartung is the kind of religious fuckhead who'd kill a person to save
their soul.

[Liberal Here]

On May 21, 1:57 am, Dänk 42Ø <d...@ak47.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:49 -0700, wy quacked:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 May, 23:26, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/20/2013 09:19 PM, quack:

> > You mean the same ladies you call whores for engaging in sex while not
> > even giving a scintilla of blame or insulting designation to the guys
> > who engage with them?  Those "ladies"?
>

> I believe that consenting adults have a right to engage in prostitution.
> Dianne Feinstein, one of the most prominent Democraps in the Senate, does
> not share this view.
>
> As mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein waged all-out war on prostitution
> and adult entertainment.  She even went undercover dressed as a hooker to
> entrap men seeking to get laid.
>
> Liberalism is generally defined as advocating personal freedom and
> economic control, while conservatism is defined as economic freedom and
> personal control.  Dianne Feinstein seems to be both liberal and
> conservative, seeking to outlaw the personal freedom to engage in
> consensual sex, and also outlawing profiting from the same consensual
> sexual agreement.  This makes her a FASCIST.

To call her a fascist (gee, maybe it takes one to known one???) is
going too far. That she's wrong is obvious.

The illegality of prostitution is a function of Judeo-christian
dogma....but advocated for actually sound reasons for centuries. I
refer to the evolution of sexually transmitted diseases. Until the
discovery of antibiotics, prostitution accelerated the transmission of
these disease through a population.

I disagree with faux liberals who think people with diseases such as
AIDS (including herpes) should not be listed so that innocents
considering sex with them can learn whether they're risking a life-
long or life-endangering infection. If people with such diseases could
be trusted to inform others (who have a need-to-know) there'd be no
need for a listing.



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Brothers_O%27Farrell_Theater
>
> "In the 1980s, newly elected Mayor Dianne Feinstein walked into the
> O'Farrell [porn theater] and said, 'I want to check this place out.' Jim
> Mitchell, in the lobby at that moment, reportedly said, 'Sure, if you buy
> a ticket.' Feinstein walked out. Soon after, raids occurred, ostensibly
> to restore safety and health of exotic dancers and resulted in obscenity
> charges being filed against the Mitchells. The brothers, apparently not
> lacking a sense of humor, changed their marquee to read, 'For showtimes,
> call...' and displayed Feinstein's unlisted phone number."

[Liberal Here]

Wives in foxholes.....love the idea.

[Liberal Here]

Ewwwwww, you were shown the "purple penis" film and you never could
get it up again.

[opel]

On 5/22/2013 10:06 AM, wy wrote:
> Oooohhh, here that, Lee? When Lord Hartung deems "appropriate".

You're hung up on him bad, aren't ya brokeback?

[Liberal Here]

Do you understand the concept of "morality"? Is Pat Robertson a moral
person? Was Jerry Falwell moral? Was bush 1/2 a moral president?

BTW, is it moral for you to decide what is appropriate to respond to
and what is not? Is that a moral position when you are defining what
is moral and what is not?

[David Hartung]

You may wish to educate yourself.

[wy]

Notice how Lord Hartung, The One Who Knows All (including how to treat
women well even when you call them whores), bothers not to educate
anyone as to what he himself has become enlightened by. If someone
educated themselves, it might actually be the wrong thing to learn in
Lord Hartung's eyes and so he'd only end up saying, "Go educate
thyself once more, my son (daughters are not included in education)"
when it would've been so easy if the Lord and Master himself educated
us all with the blessed awareness he has come to possess. Why does he
greedily keep that knowledge to himself and expect everyone to try to
find it for themselves when more often than not they simply won't?

[Lee]

You brag about your personal experience
except when comes your own history of being
"sexual activity outside of marriage".

I think it is safe to say you were in
fact sexually active outside of marriage
yourself, otherwise you would bragging about
your success with abstinency.

Your evasion on this is most disappointing.

[Lee]

Hartung would be screaming from the rooftops
about his success with abstinency if he had any.
His evasion only proves that he wants to impose
on others a moral standard that he himself could
not live up to.

There is a word for that..........