PDA

View Full Version : Iím the man. Iím the man. Iím the man. Greeneís the man.




low preference guy
11-16-2010, 08:14 PM
ďWrite about me running for president,Ē Greene said. ďIím running for president of the United States.Ē

Greene said he was born to be president and that he turns 35 in August of 2012.

ďIím the next president,Ē Greene said, while sitting on a bench. ďIíll be 35 Ö just before November, so I was born to be president. Iím the man. Iím the man. Iím the man. Greeneís the man. Iím the man. Iím the greatest person ever. I was born to be president. Iím the man, Iím the greatest individual ever.Ē


Link (http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11861611103888857)

james1906
11-16-2010, 08:17 PM
We should start a money bomb.

low preference guy
11-16-2010, 08:18 PM
The accuser is blaming Greene for getting bad grades:


Camille was hoping for a chance to speak at Greene’s hearing so she could say how her encounter with the man she considers a predator changed her life.

“It just changed my personality in a way that was negative,” she said, adding that she is now nervous around older men. “I missed a lot of classes due to him and that messed with my grades, too, and I lost a scholarship."

oyarde
11-16-2010, 08:30 PM
He could be the only candidate in modern history in a pres primary to receive only one vote .

haaaylee
11-16-2010, 08:35 PM
He could be the only candidate in modern history in a pres primary to receive only one vote .

His dad may be dead by then. . .

oyarde
11-16-2010, 08:36 PM
His dad may be dead by then. . .

I figured his Dad would not vote for him ......

RonPaulFanInGA
11-16-2010, 08:38 PM
Why is the media still talking about this guy?

oyarde
11-16-2010, 08:39 PM
Why is the media still talking about this guy?

Because it is better than a carnival side show ......

WilliamShrugged
11-16-2010, 08:50 PM
YouTube - orgazmo - now you are a man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECIKVaz5rc)

dannno
11-16-2010, 09:16 PM
YouTube - orgazmo - now you are a man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECIKVaz5rc)

Man, Matt and Trey Parker really like making fun of Mormons :D

I'm prepping to make a thread about their upcoming Broadway Show, "The Book of Mormon"

dannno
11-16-2010, 09:51 PM
The accuser is blaming Greene for getting bad grades:

Ya know... this could have been a lot worse if she'd changed the word "older" to a, uhh, certain skin color, but I can't imagine someone saying that nowadays ;)


she is now nervous around older men.

dannno
11-16-2010, 10:14 PM
So what is this guy being charged with exactly? Showing pornographic picture(s) to an 18 yr old? Did he not warn her that is what they were? How could she have seen more than one picture if the first one was pornographic, and she didn't want to see it, then wouldn't she have not looked at anymore?

I dunno, this girl is freaking out suddenly and saying he is a predator. Is a predator someone who tries to consensually get with someone? Why was she so scared? Have the transcripts of the chat not been released?

low preference guy
11-16-2010, 11:01 PM
So what is this guy being charged with exactly? Showing pornographic picture(s) to an 18 yr old? Did he not warn her that is what they were? How could she have seen more than one picture if the first one was pornographic, and she didn't want to see it, then wouldn't she have not looked at anymore?

I dunno, this girl is freaking out suddenly and saying he is a predator. Is a predator someone who tries to consensually get with someone? Why was she so scared? Have the transcripts of the chat not been released?

i cannot think of any real crime occurring when somebody shows somebody else a screen with porn

Kludge
11-16-2010, 11:10 PM
i cannot think of any real crime occurring when somebody shows somebody else a screen with porn

Then would you also say it should not be a crime to show a minor porn? You would discard the "obscenity" exception from the SCOTUS' interpretation of free speech? You would allow pornographers to send pornographic mailers out to houses where children may be? You would permit snuff films to be shown on cable television? You would allow Hitler to come to power, kill all the Jews you hate so passionately, lock up anyone who disagrees with you, and then enslave anyone left alive from your DISGUSTING FASCIST POLICIES?!!!

low preference guy
11-16-2010, 11:11 PM
..

oyarde
11-17-2010, 07:25 PM
Then would you also say it should not be a crime to show a minor porn? You would discard the "obscenity" exception from the SCOTUS' interpretation of free speech? You would allow pornographers to send pornographic mailers out to houses where children may be? You would permit snuff films to be shown on cable television? You would allow Hitler to come to power, kill all the Jews you hate so passionately, lock up anyone who disagrees with you, and then enslave anyone left alive from your DISGUSTING FASCIST POLICIES?!!!

I started buying porn over the counter at the gas station at 15 .

oyarde
11-17-2010, 07:26 PM
My girlfriend was 18 , if they had not sold it to me , I could have got her to get it for me ...

Kludge
11-17-2010, 07:33 PM
I started buying porn over the counter at the gas station at 15 .

Everybody who works for that gas distribution corporation should be arrested as sexual predators and child rapists.

oyarde
11-17-2010, 07:50 PM
Everybody who works for that gas distribution corporation should be arrested as sexual predators and child rapists.

Actually , if I had adresses for them , I would send them all a Christmas card for helping me out in my youth .

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 07:51 PM
i laugh at the title of this thread every single time the thread is bumped

oyarde
11-17-2010, 07:51 PM
I would get a pack of cigarettes too , and the age for that was 16 .

nate895
11-17-2010, 07:53 PM
i cannot think of any real crime occurring when somebody shows somebody else a screen with porn

It's called sexual assault.

And libertarians wonder why nobody wants to vote for them.

Libertarian: We should have smaller government and more freedom!!!

Crowd: Loud cheers

Libertarian: And, showing porn to someone who doesn't want to see it is freedom of speech!

Crowd: Couple of cheers, mostly look at each other and slowly walk toward the mainstream R and D candidates

oyarde
11-17-2010, 07:53 PM
On the bright side , I did not start regularly buying beer until 16 .

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 07:57 PM
It's called sexual assault.

joking?

i'm talking about real crimes. showing a screen with porn to somebody who isn't a minor isn't a crime. it's not a violation of a contract, or of property, or physical integrity.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 07:59 PM
Libertarian: And, showing porn to someone who doesn't want to see it is freedom of speech!

did he force her to watch it? did he threaten her to not close her eyes or leave the room or look some place else?

nate895
11-17-2010, 07:59 PM
joking?

i'm talking about real crimes. showing a screen with porn to somebody who isn't a minor isn't a crime.

Yes it is. It is the crime of sexual assault, which is unwanted sexual contact, which would include unwanted showing of pornographic materials to someone.

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:02 PM
did he force her to watch it? did he threaten her to not close her eyes or leave the room or look some place else?

She was at a computer in a school library, and the dude next to her randomly showed her porn. If you can't go to the school library without having to worry about the person next to you showing you porn, then you simply have no rights in this society.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 08:02 PM
Yes it is. It is the crime of sexual assault, which is unwanted sexual contact, which would include unwanted showing of pornographic materials to someone.

it isn't a crime. it's not a violation of property, contract, or physical integrity. it can only be a crime if you want to punish whatever random behavior you happen to dislike.

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:04 PM
it isn't a crime. it's not a violation of property, contract, or physical integrity. it can only be a crime if you want to punish whatever random behavior you happen to dislike.

What about mental integrity? This dude next to her showed her porn, and then asked if she wanted to go back to his place.

You should have the right not to be assaulted with porn if you don't want to.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 08:08 PM
What about mental integrity? This dude next to her showed her porn, and then asked if she wanted to go back to his place.

You should have the right not to be assaulted with porn if you don't want to.

so you have the right "not to be shown things"? where do you draw the line? what if i tell you bad news? what if i say something unpleasant to somebody that she claims causes her psychological harm? e.g., i tell a smoker it is bad to smoke. or i tell a healthy non-smoker that it is fun to smoke. the whole idea it's ridiculous. you don't have a right to not be shown things unless you have a contract saying so.

oyarde
11-17-2010, 08:11 PM
However you slice it , it was not a prudent decision by a stupid guy. We cannot throw everyone in prison though .

Monarchist
11-17-2010, 08:11 PM
Yes it is. It is the crime of sexual assault, which is unwanted sexual contact, which would include unwanted showing of pornographic materials to someone.

More like sexual harassment.

Kludge
11-17-2010, 08:13 PM
However you slice it , it was not a prudent decision by a stupid guy. We cannot throw everyone in prison though .

So long as "we" can print money, "we" can throw almost everyone in prison, save the leaders.

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:15 PM
so you have the right "not to be shown things"? where do you draw the line? what if i tell you bad news? what if i say something unpleasant to somebody that she claims causes her psychological harm? e.g., i tell a smoker it is bad to smoke. or i tell a healthy non-smoker that it is fun to smoke. the whole idea it's ridiculous. you don't have a right to not be shown things unless you have a contract saying so.

Porn is sexual. Bad news isn't. Porn is obscene. Bad news isn't. Where do you draw the line? Unwanted sexual contact. There you go, it's already on the books. Showing porn to people in public is sexual contact, and should be against the law.

You're argument is a weak slippery slope. The fact is, it is already against the law to show porn to random people on the streets, and it isn't against the law to tell someone bad news. The two have zero to do with one another.

And, also, can't I say the same to you concerning minors? You can tell minors bad news, but you can't show them porn? Where do we stop? You already are making a distinction between porn and other sorts of speech material, so why should we not continue that distinction to the realm of adults who choose to abstain from viewing porn?

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:16 PM
More like sexual harassment.

Arguably either. In any event, it's a crime.

oyarde
11-17-2010, 08:19 PM
So long as "we" can print money, "we" can throw almost everyone in prison, save the leaders.

I do not beleive people should be in prison unless they have done physical / financial harm to someone . If a person is sound mentally , what happened in this case should not have done any mental harm to this young lady .

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 08:25 PM
Porn is sexual. Bad news isn't. Porn is obscene. Bad news isn't. Where do you draw the line? Unwanted sexual contact. There you go, it's already on the books. Showing porn to people in public is sexual contact, and should be against the law.

dude, it's not sexual assault. it might be a sexual suggestion, but if he looked at the woman's chest, it would also be an inappropriate act, but there is no physical harm or even an attempt to force her to do something she didn't want to do. in your world a guy who looks at a woman below their neck, maybe even accidentally, could be in jail. and there is no principled case based on property rights or protection of life. it's just a ridiculous arbitrary law at criminalizing a behavior that doesn't violate anyone's rights.

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:32 PM
dude, it's not sexual assault. it might be a sexual suggestion, but if he looked at the woman's chest, it would also be an inappropriate act, but there is no physical harm or even an attempt to force her to do something she didn't want to do. in your world a guy who looks at a woman below their neck, maybe even accidentally, could be in jail. and there is no principled case based on property rights or protection of life. it's just a ridiculous arbitrary law at criminalizing a behavior that doesn't violate anyone's rights.

Looking at someone does not involve intimidation. Showing them images of sex (the actual definition of porn, nudity does not equal porn) that forces one to think about sexual behavior is harassment.

Again, why should we make distinctions with minors in your system? By your logic, we should lock minors in their rooms so as to not allow them to be able to hear any speech.

libertythor
11-17-2010, 08:35 PM
Perhaps Greene should be charged with trespassing and some sort of fraud for how he gained access to the computers to begin with.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 08:38 PM
Looking at someone does not involve intimidation. Showing them images of sex (the actual definition of porn, nudity does not equal porn) that forces one to think about sexual behavior is harassment.

Again, why should we make distinctions with minors in your system? By your logic, we should lock minors in their rooms so as to not allow them to be able to hear any speech.

rather than go through side topics that deserve another thread, i think it's better to go back to the heart of the argument.

i don't think we're going to agree, because we probably view what constitutes crime differently. i don't accept anything as a crime, and i think most libertarians would agree, unless it can be shown that it is a violation of property, contract, or physical integrity. is this case any of these three type of violations? if so, let me know, if not, we have standards to call something a crime.

as for having a right to not being shown things that lead someone to think about something... well, that notion is just too laughable to even discuss.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 08:41 PM
Looking at someone does not involve intimidation. Showing them images of sex (the actual definition of porn, nudity does not equal porn) that forces one to think about sexual behavior is harassment.


doesn't having a guy looking towards a woman's chest force her to think "this ass would like to see(*) or touch my boobs!"?

(*) he is not seeing them because i'm assuming she is clothed

nate895
11-17-2010, 08:51 PM
rather than go through side topics that deserve another thread, i think it's better to go back to the heart of the argument.

i don't think we're going to agree, because we probably view what constitutes crime differently. i don't accept anything as a crime, and i think most libertarians would agree, unless it can be shown that it is a violation of property, contract, or physical integrity. is this case any of these three type of violations? if so, let me know, if not, we have standards to call something a crime.

as for having a right to not being shown things that lead someone to think about something... well, that notion is just too laughable to even discuss.

Umm, and how is it different with a minor?

This is a fundamental problem with true libertarianism in general. There can be no distinction between minors and adults in the system.

Anyway, you still have not resolved the problem. You are making a distinction between minors and the rest of everyone, and yet you refuse to make the distinction between the obscene sexual nature of pornography and the nature of non-obscene material.

low preference guy
11-17-2010, 09:11 PM
Umm, and how is it different with a minor?

This is a fundamental problem with true libertarianism in general. There can be no distinction between minors and adults in the system.

Anyway, you still have not resolved the problem. You are making a distinction between minors and the rest of everyone, and yet you refuse to make the distinction between the obscene sexual nature of pornography and the nature of non-obscene material.

i didn't say i made any distinction regarding minors. i mentioned the fact that she wasn't a minor so that the claim that she is a minor wouldn't be used, because she isn't. so you're claiming that i took a position that i never took apparently because you don't want to talk about the central issue. fine.

again, i have taken no position in this thread about laws regarding minors. she is not a minor. this thread has nothing to do with minors.