Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Falcon Horus]

No, I meant what I said as I said it. I don't want to see another Bush in there. This place is not supposed to be run by family dynasties.

Nor by people who have zero political experience.

[Annoyed]

Nor by people who have zero political experience.

That I don't agree with. New blood is exactly what Washington needs; people who aren't a part of the entrenched corrupt system.
I would much rather see a complete newcomer with good intentions than anyone who is part of the existing mess.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

^ Thinks Trump has good intentions








......

[jelgate]

I find it funny that we don't think Trump is corrupt

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I find it funny that we don't think Trump is corrupt

We don't?

[Falcon Horus]

^ Thinks Trump has good intentions








......

What she said.

I find it funny that we don't think Trump is corrupt

Still waiting for those tax returns.

[garhkal]

I'd be perfectly content if we never heard from another Clinton, Bush or Obama, period.

PS: Oh, yeah, almost forgot, there was another Bush in the game this time around, too,

I agree. 2 generations of bushes already, and JEB tried to be a third (and now we have a potential 4th), along with both bill and hillary are enough..
LETS GET NEW BLOOD IN!


Now onto something NOT POLITICS (though it might tie in).. Was watching HLN around 2pm, and they had a bit on the news about women who 'have to text their rapist' (as the headline said), meaning women who were raped, had a kid (or kids), and now have to include their rapist in said kids life.. whether just by allowing supervised visits, photos or the like.


Now i can understand if daddy is being forced to pay child support him having the argument that he should be also therefore involved in the kids life..
BUT if no child support, then how in gods name do the courts allow the rapist to have access to the kid????

This CNN article, though 3 years old, seems to be the only thing CLOSE i can find on it, as the HLN site has nothing..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rap...ody/index.html

SO what do you all say? Should a rapist even be allowed to be part of the life of a kid his crime created? Should a woman raped, be able to claim child support for said kid, and if so does that therefore mean the rapist should have access?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

If only there was a way to avoid all that..

No one is going to debate you on whether a ******* rapist has rights. The answer is NO.

No ifs or buts.

No.

[Annoyed]

I agree. 2 generations of bushes already, and JEB tried to be a third (and now we have a potential 4th), along with both bill and hillary are enough..
LETS GET NEW BLOOD IN!


Now onto something NOT POLITICS (though it might tie in).. Was watching HLN around 2pm, and they had a bit on the news about women who 'have to text their rapist' (as the headline said), meaning women who were raped, had a kid (or kids), and now have to include their rapist in said kids life.. whether just by allowing supervised visits, photos or the like.


Now i can understand if daddy is being forced to pay child support him having the argument that he should be also therefore involved in the kids life..
BUT if no child support, then how in gods name do the courts allow the rapist to have access to the kid????

This CNN article, though 3 years old, seems to be the only thing CLOSE i can find on it, as the HLN site has nothing..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rap...ody/index.html

SO what do you all say? Should a rapist even be allowed to be part of the life of a kid his crime created? Should a woman raped, be able to claim child support for said kid, and if so does that therefore mean the rapist should have access?

HLN ?
Anyway.. there is no freaking way a rapist should be even allowed access to his progeny. Pay child support? Absolutely. But nohow should he have any rights regarding that kid.

[Gatefan1976]

If only there was a way to avoid all that..

Not for much longer if Some have their way.

No one is going to debate you on whether a ******* rapist has rights. The answer is NO.

No ifs or buts.

No.

You -could- craft a purely legal argument in favour of it, but I'm not going to be the one to do it.

EDIT: sigh.
Just because I say you can create a legal argument, does not mean I am in favour of it, nor think anyone should. My personal feeling on rapists would not be fit for public consumption, suffice to say that I feel there are few crimes that deserve the death penalty, and it heads that very small list.

[SoulReaver]

HLN ?
Anyway.. there is no freaking way a rapist father should be even allowed access to his progeny. Pay child support? Absolutely. But nohow should he have any rights regarding that kid.

first off use the correct word: father
so then, why deny him his rights as a father? it wouldn't be very Prolife(tm) to refuse to acknowledge the father's precious contribution to Life would it

[garhkal]

HLN ?.

Yes HLN.. I was giving fox a break..

[Coco Pops]

http://www.zdnet.com/article/snooper...s-becomes-law/

So it will be put in law that UK internet providers have to keep everyone's data for a year so that if there are any police investigations they can have that data to find suspects or information.

Bit heavy handed don't you think, but then we have similar laws here in Australia.

I think for us they have to keep data for 2 years, that includes metadata for emails, phone calls, and text messages.

Any thoughts?

[Ian-S]

It was briefly discussed on the previous page, my opinion is another example of people being conned into giving up their right to privacy under the guise of being provided security by the state.

Most people I know simply argue "I have nothing to hide so why should I worry" without realising the true implications of such laws being easily adaptable, the other argument I hear is "if it helps stop terrorism I'm all for it" completely oblivious that anybody up to no good wouldn't use the systems covered by the legislation anyway.

Its the same argument you get from the cashless society supporters, they're so blinded by the excitement and aparant benefits of the system, that they are completely oblivious to the other not-so-nice uses it can be used for.

[Coco Pops]

It was briefly discussed on the previous page, my opinion is another example of people being conned into giving up their right to privacy under the guise of being provided security by the state.

Most people I know simply argue "I have nothing to hide so why should I worry" without realising the true implications of such laws being easily adaptable, the other argument I hear is "if it helps stop terrorism I'm all for it" completely oblivious that anybody up to no good wouldn't use the systems covered by the legislation anyway.

Its the same argument you get from the cashless society supporters, they're so blinded by the excitement and aparant benefits of the system, that they are completely oblivious to the other not-so-nice uses it can be used for.

What is scary about that group is that they are conning people into the cashless society. It's one of the perfect means of tracking and controlling people. Once everyone is cashless well guess what happens?