Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 991 to 1,005 of 14362
-
10-22-23 21:29 #13372
Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
LOL. I provided info that supports your view better than Spidy's. You may not have been able to tell that because the researchgate link is broken now. Spidy however located the paper (Karen J. Terry's) the graph came from and posted on it below. I'm not finding a link to the full paper with the graphs though. One showed a much larger number of boys than girls being abused. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
I maintain that all of us, including you, believe sexual abuse of girls and boys by priests and nuns is sick. That's using my definition of "sexual abuse. " I'm not getting into this further because I don't think discussion of adults having sex with boys and girls, except to condemn it, is in the best interests of this site.
-
10-22-23 21:25 #13371
UNDERSTANDING ABUSERS in the Catholic Church
And Offenders.
Understanding the Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church: Challenges with.
Prevention PoliciesClergy Sexual AbuseK. J. Terry.
Karen J. Terry.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract: Child sexual abuse by Catholic priests was recognized as a crisis in 2002.
And in response the USA Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) created the Charter.
For the Protection of Children and Young People. At the time little was known about.
Clergy abusers, their victims, or the situations regarding their abusive behavior. John.
Jay College researchers published two reports on the nature and scope of child sexual.
Abuse by Catholic priests that provided descriptive information about this problem.
(John Jay College, 2004,2006). This article provides descriptive information about.
Clergy abusersincluding demographics, victim choice, grooming behavior, duration.
Of abusive behavior, and issues related to the reporting of offenses by victims. Policy.
Implications are discussed based upon the comparison of clergy to nonclergy abusers.
As with child sexual abuse in any population, effective prevention policies are.
Challenging to implement due to the interaction of many variables related to the.
Abuse process.
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE: UNDERSTANDING ABUSERS
AND THOSE THEY ABUSE.
Sex offenders constitute a heterogeneous population Even the offenders who.
Sexually abuse children differ greatly, depending on factors such as level of.
Attraction to children and social competence (Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982;.
Knight & Prentky, 1990). Yet, they are often grouped together by the media.
As and referred to as "fiends, monsters and predators" (Jenkins, 1998) who.
Recidivate at high levels (Douard, 2007). Several emotionally charged cases of.
Sexual abuse and murder of children in the late 1980's led to what some.
Researchers called a moral panic (Jenkins, 1998), resulting in increased levels.
Of monitoring, policing, adjudicating, and incarcerating of sex offenders.
(Simon & Zgoba, 2006). Sex offender policies, including registration and com-.
Munity notification, sexually violent predator legislation, and mandatory.
Chemical castration for paroled sex offenders became popular solutions to the.
Perceived sex offender problem.
Because of their heterogeneity, one-size-fits-all policies for sex offenders
may not be effective at reducing abusive behavior. Many factors influence the
etiology of deviant sexual behavior, including physiological factors, a poor
psychosexual development, deviant sexual arousal, learned conditions, poor
quality attachments, loneliness and intimacy problems, poor social skills, and
low self-confidence and self-esteem (Robertiello & Terry, 2007).
Sex offenders do have some characteristics in common, however they have a later onset of
deviant behavior than nonsex offenders, are often more educated, of all racial
and ethnic groups, and of all socioeconomic classes (Terry, 2006) 36 K. J. Terry
the John Jay researchers took several steps to ensure uniformity in completion
of the surveys. They provided all dioceses with written instructions, a video
explaining how to complete the surveys, a toll-free number to call from nine to
five, and access to a Web site with answers to frequently asked questions. Once
the dioceses completed their surveys, they sent the surveys in a double envelope
to an independent auditor at a national accounting firm in Washington D.C.
The auditor gave each diocese a unique, random code; discarded the outer enve-
lope or box with the diocesan information; and sent the surveys to John Jay for
analysis. For a more detailed account of the methodology, see Terry (in press).
RESULTS
The results of this study indicate that clergy sexual abusers are similar in
many ways to the nonclergy population of abusers. They commit a variety of
offenses (often in the home of the abuser or the victim), they have a late onset
of deviant behavior, similar grooming techniques, and few specialize in a
particular victim type. However, they differ in regard to victim gender and
length of time they wait to disclose the abuse.
According to victimization studies of sexual abuse, more females than
males are sexually victimized, but this differs in the clergy population. As
Figure 3 shows, priests abused significantly more boys (81%) than girls (19%).
The majority of victims (51%) were between the ages of 11 and 14, 27% were
15–17, 16% were 8–10 and 6% were under age 7. About 40% of all victims
were males between 11 and 14. The mean age of male victims was older than
the mean age of female victims. The more victims the offenders had, victims
tended to be both younger and male.
-
10-22-23 20:59 #13370
"IT" was never in question.
Nice plethora of articles, research and informational data points, for readers to examine and draw their own conclusions, given the discussion here. Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
But they do provide a good data set, highlight and substantiate, many of my talking points.
This priest's candid estimation, is probably spot on and closer to the truth, IMHO. Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Agreed! But "it" (sexual abuse) "being sick", was NEVER in question! Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
So just to be clear (not starting an fight here, but), the "whether it's a boy or a girl" AND the "sexual orientation of the perpetrator", parts of your statement/comment are what's most relevant to the debate between MDS1, myself and others.
Ergo, those quintessential talking points, are what's at the very center of the debate and paramount to the crux of the discussion, as some of us are claiming their antithetical beliefs and facts (contrary to prevailing wisdom), and spouting it as "gospel" (pun intended).
There will always be those that live in denial of the facts, staring them in the face. That type of extreme denial, is on solely them, as there's not much you can do or say!!
-
10-22-23 19:38 #13369
Whomp whomp wrong again
"Thanks. The facts and data are always convincing. And I absolutely have the facts and data on my side.
Hmm. John Wayne Gacy might be one of the rare exceptions to the serial killer thing you suggested.
However, there is no exception to that consistent, beyond all possible matters of chance or coincidence atrocious Outgoing Repub handoff to the Incoming Dem vs the Far Superior Outgoing Dem handoff to the Incoming Repub historical pattern for the past century or so.
Now, if the lucky Incoming Repubs varied wildly in the kind of idiotic Repub economic and tax policies along with a general contempt and inattention to regulations and the enforcement of regulations they favored, proposed and were guided by before their typical Great Repub Depression, Great Repub Recession and / or Massive Repub Jobs Destruction inevitably kicked in, well, maybe we could chalk up most or some of those consistent Repub stewardship and policy results as "wild coincidences. ".
But they didn't and don't. That's why their historically disastrous results only vary by degree here and there. ".
Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist.
How about Mao.
How about Stalin.
How about Pol Pot.
How about Che or even Sodom Hussein (and yes related to Barry Hussein) and et al.
Add up all these deaths and brutal murders!!
-
10-22-23 19:30 #13368
I see your trying to yank the Overton window off a left winger cliff per your links
"No wonder polls are showing registered voter respondents fleeing from Biden and the Dems and flocking to Trump and his fellow Repubs today! Same as we read about here, of course.
Just look at what Mainstream Media has been harping on and what all Repubs, all Repubs claiming to be "Independents" and some other poll respondents claiming to be Dems agree is the most terrifying threat to the America today:
Top newspapers mention Bidens age more than twice as often as Trumps.
Since the president announced his 2024 campaign, five major USA Papers have mentioned Bidens age in 332 articles and Trumps in just 158.
https://www.mediamatters.org/los-ang...e-often-trumps
Gov. Karen Has Had It, Is Taking 'Woke' Words To The Manager.
Wait, is she the manager, or is there a CEO at the Woke Department she's going to talk to?
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/10/g...ing-woke-words
And take a gander at the delicious carrot of plans Trump is dangling over American voters' eyes if their terror over the previous issues works as hoped for by Bill Maher and MSM and they grace America and the World with a second of many future Trump so-called presidential terms!
Donald Trumps answer on what he would do in a 2nd term is literally unintelligible.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/polit...mes/index.html
27 Insane Things Trump Said he Will Do in a 2nd Term.
A list with dates and links.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-...-in-a-2nd-term
Seriously, who can hear and read those issues and not be compelled to reject Biden / Dems and embrace Trump / Pink Tinkle Do Nothing Know Nothings in the polls?
Whats wrong your couldn't find more ridiculous websites to link, pro tip try the Onion.
Oh wait that's where I think you grabbed these silly links.
No offense jajajaja but nobody with even only an ounce of intelligence would read those childish websites.
Here Ill even throw you sum help jajajajaja.
https://justthenews.com/accountabili...d-be-disbanded
Go ahead ET now you can start posting Newsguard links they are right up your tinfoil hat alley jajajajajajajajaja.
-
10-22-23 17:56 #13367
Leadership
In the Republican way!
-
10-22-23 17:21 #13366
More petty shoplifters stealing packs of gum
Per ETs characterizations of Dirty Joes mayhem and murderous crime wave sweeping every corner of the country 24/7.
https://www.aol.com/news/senate-warn...080049392.html
https://www.aol.com/news/son-nashvil...tR4j1cf1iXLYq8
-
10-22-23 16:53 #13365College students who don't think Bill Maher is funny enough to invite to appear on their campus anymore and Career Liar, Nude Grinbitch? LOL. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
My my. Well, it says a lot if you think what a handful of college students say about "very fine people on both sides" carries as much weight or is it more weight than your oh so much strength-projecting lord and savior did in generously embracing Nazis on the world stage as a so-called president of the United states.
Sad.
-
10-22-23 06:15 #13364
The Neverending Fairy Tales
LOL. It's fun to see that Ronnie is still coated with Teflon and that Grinbitch's only contribution to how congressional Repubs "govern and legislate" lives on in the Repub Pink Tinklers of today.
Thank goodness Reagan spent and spent and spent on the military throughout his so-called presidency in order to "end the cold war" with Russia. Although there is zero evidence he was ever aware that was supposedly why he did it at the time. Why, if he hadn't done that the world would still he plagued by warlike Russian aggression and unprovoked invasions willy-nilly since the dust settled on that spectacularly expensive brilliant Reagan "victory"!
Uh. Well, except for 1994,1999, 2008,2014 and 2022, that is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion
And does anyone even need to link the number of times congressional Repubs (and so-called potuses) could only come up with Grinbitchian threats to shut down the government whenever all the heavy lifting and political risk taking by Dems was already producing historic positive gains for the country and, therefore, Repubs desperately needed to put and end to that before the next election?
Nope.
-
10-22-23 05:34 #13363
The obvious stick behind and the carrot in front. LOL
No wonder polls are showing registered voter respondents fleeing from Biden and the Dems and flocking to Trump and his fellow Repubs today! Same as we read about here, of course.
Just look at what Mainstream Media has been harping on and what all Repubs, all Repubs claiming to be "Independents" and some other poll respondents claiming to be Dems agree is the most terrifying threat to the America today:
Top newspapers mention Bidens age more than twice as often as Trumps.
Since the president announced his 2024 campaign, five major U.S. papers have mentioned Bidens age in 332 articles and Trumps in just 158.
https://www.mediamatters.org/los-ang...e-often-trumps
Gov. Karen Has Had It, Is Taking 'Woke' Words To The Manager.
Wait, is she the manager, or is there a CEO at the Woke Department she's going to talk to?
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/10/g...ing-woke-words
And take a gander at the delicious carrot of plans Trump is dangling over American voters' eyes if their terror over the previous issues works as hoped for by Bill Maher and MSM and they grace America and the World with a second of many future Trump so-called presidential terms!
Donald Trumps answer on what he would do in a 2nd term is literally unintelligible.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/polit...mes/index.html
27 Insane Things Trump Said He Will Do in a 2nd Term.
A list with dates and links.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-...-in-a-2nd-term
Seriously, who can hear and read those issues and not be compelled to reject Biden / Dems and embrace Trump / Pink Tinkle Do Nothing Know Nothings in the polls?
-
10-22-23 05:00 #13362Agreed Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
So do Democrats. Look at the capital gains treatment of performance fees for fund managers, also known as carried interest. Tricky Chuck Schumer has managed to keep this in effect for many years, while putting the blame on others, most recently Kyrsten Sinema. Or look at the tax benefits given by Democrats to manufacturers and consumers of green energy. Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
Agreed. However, I give Reagan a pass. High defense spending in the 1980's was part of the reason for the end of the cold war, and provided a "peace dividend", equivalent to about 3% of GDP per year, that helped enable Clinton, Gingrich and others to balance the budget in the late 1990's. Also, this ain't your Daddy's Democratic Party no more Cane. Or, well, actually maybe it is. LBJ was a Democrat. The mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are both on board with giving the Pentagon what it wants. And even what it doesn't want if there's a weapons system or military base in your Congressional district that the brass want to do away with. The outliers are the true Progressives and the Libertarian right. Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
Democrats have their pet causes too, and they squander more money on them than Republicans IMHO. You saw that in action during 2021 and 2022, with massive amounts of pork and corporate welfare appropriated for said pet causes through the infrastructure bill, CHIPS act, and ridiculously-named Inflation Reduction Act.
Absolutely agreed! And I'm not mimicking you. I really do absolutely agree. Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
You're cherry picking Cane. If you're going back 54 years so you can count Johnson's $3.2 billion surplus in 1969, then why shouldn't you go back another 9 to 13 years and count Eisenhower's 3.9 billion surplus in 1956, 3.4 billion surplus in 1957, and $301 million surplus in 1960? Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
You're ignoring the role of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Congressional Republicans who controlled the Senate and the House during that period. The best combination for controlling deficits is a Democratic President and Republican House. You saw that earlier this year, when McCarthy and House Republicans managed to claw back $1.5 trillion of the $5+ trillion of unfunded spending legislated by Democrats in 2021 and 2022. Also there was the aforementioned peace dividend. Defense spending as a % of GDP dropped from 6.1% to 6.8% during the Reagan Administration to 3.1% to 3.2% during 1998 to 2001, before jumping up to around 4% as a result of George W. Bush's ill advised war in Iraq. Originally Posted by The Cane
[View Original Post]
-
10-21-23 22:28 #13361
Mandatory Douhat for your perusal / CCP compromised Dirty Joe is a danger to us all
Ross Douthat.
By Ross Douthat.
Opinion Columnist and host of the "Matter of Opinion" podcast.
On Thursday, Joe Biden gave a speech linking the Israel-Hamas conflict and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and framing American involvement as part of a grand strategy to contain our enemies and rivals. "When terrorists don't pay a price for their terror, when dictators don't pay a price for their aggression," he declared, "they keep going. And the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising. ".
Listen to 'Matter of Opinion'.
Ross Douthat and his co-hosts are joined by Thomas L. Friedman to discuss the evolving situation in the Middle East and Netanyahu's "incompetent" cabinet.
Opinion.
Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat and Lydia Polgreen.
Thomas L. Friedman on Israel's 'Morally Impossible Situation'.
Oct. 20,2023.
Broadly speaking, Biden is correct; the United States has a strong interest in preventing rival powers from redrawing maps or undermining America's democratic allies. But the difference between the president's strategic analysis and the kind I've tried to offer recently is twofold: the general absence, in Biden's words, of any acknowledgment of difficult trade-offs and the specific absence of any reference to China as a potentially more significant threat than Russia or Iran.
These absences are not particularly surprising. It's normal for American presidents to say chest-pounding things like "There is nothing, nothing beyond our capacity" rather than to talk about possible limits on our strength. And since we don't actually want to be at war with China, it makes a certain sense to avoid lumping Beijing in with Moscow and Tehran.
But presidential rhetoric and policy are inevitably linked, and the China threat that doesn't exist in Biden's speech barely exists in his funding request: The administration is asking Congress for over $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel and just $2 billion for the Indo-Pacific. Likewise, a president's rhetoric lacunas inform political priorities, at least within his own coalition. If you can't talk about why we need to worry about Chinese power alongside Russian or Iranian aggression, the people who listen to you may assume there's nothing to worry about.
So let me explain why I worry about China and why I keep insisting that a strategy of containment in the Pacific should be a priority, even when other threats seem more immediate.
Start with the geopolitical background. It makes sense to talk about China, Iran and Russia as a loose alliance trying to undermine American power, but it is not a trio of equals. Only China is an arguable peer of the United States, only China's technological and industrial might can hope to match our own, and only China has the capacity to project power globally as well as regionally.
Moreover, China offers a somewhat coherent ideological alternative to the liberal-democratic order. The Putin regime is a parody of Western democracy, and Iran's mixture of theocracy and pseudodemocracy holds little broad appeal. But China's one-party meritocracy can advertise itself — maybe less effectively since Xi Jinping's consolidation of power but still with some degree of plausibility — as a successor to democratic capitalism, an alternative model for the developing world.
These general strategic realities obviously aren't as threatening as actual aggression. But the threat China poses to Taiwan, in particular, has different implications for American power from the threat Russia poses to Ukraine or Hamas poses to Israel. Whatever happens in the Ukrainian conflict, America was never formally committed to Ukraine's defense, and Russia cannot realistically defeat NATO. Whatever misery Iran and its proxies may inflict upon the Middle East, they are not going to conquer Israel or drive American power out of the Levant.
But America is more committed (with whatever public ambiguity) to the defense of Taiwan, and that expectation has always been in the background of our larger alliance system in East Asia. And while six experts may give six different opinions, there are good reasons to think that China is open to invading Taiwan in the near future and that America could join such a war and lose outright.
China hawks tend to argue that losing a war over Taiwan would be much worse than our post-9/11 debacles, worse than letting Vladimir Putin hold the Donbas and Crimea permanently. You cannot definitively prove this, but I think they're right: The establishment of Chinese military pre-eminence in East Asia would be a unique geopolitical shock, with dire effects on the viability of America's alliance systems, on the likelihood of regional wars and arms races and on our ability to maintain the global trading system that undergirds our prosperity at home.
And it's at home where I fear the effects of such a defeat the most. America has experience losing wars of empire — in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for example, where we were extending ourselves without putting our full might into the fray. But we have no experience being defeated in straightforward combat, not guerrilla war, by a great-power rival and ideological competitor.
Whatever anxieties you have about our current political divisions, whether you fear left-wing disillusionment with America or right-wing disillusionment with democracy or both, such a defeat seems more likely than anything to accelerate us toward a real internal crisis. Which is why, even with other foreign crises burning hot, a debacle in East Asia remains the scenario that the United States should be working most intensely to avert.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'the like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (at NYTOpinion) and Instagram.
Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author, most recently, of "The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. " at DouthatNYT • Facebook.
-
10-21-23 21:04 #13360
The Nazi side the avg Demoractic voter
"Ted Bundy, Republican:
https://law.jrank.org/pages/12174/Bu...nnections.html
In fact, Bundy was the kind of Repub whose appearance, presentation and chosen candidates to support most directly would peg him as one of those "normal" Republicans.
Jeffrey Dahmer's political affiliation is more difficult to determine. However, his family's influence and life choices strongly suggest he was a typical, closeted, conservative, anti-science, bible-thumping Repub:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#text=In%20 early%201982%2 see%20 he%20 found, money%20 his%20 grandmother%20 gave%20 him.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side. ".
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...on-both-sides/
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...m-on-the-left/
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...ocratic-party/
Do you always use double speak, or just when you want to look really xtra silly here?
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...ocratic-party/
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.
-
10-21-23 20:08 #13359
To quote some of the very hot women I've known
"Age and gender of children sexually abused by priests:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...he-abuse-began
Excerpt from New York Times Article, It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage. Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.
The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.
Fewer than about 10 priests in the United States have dared to come out publicly. But gay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don't know what the hell they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/u...speak-out.html
Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".
When I whisper in their ear I want to "RAPE the fuck out of you" theyve replied.
"you cannot rape the willing".
Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".
No we can't all agree, that's ASININE!! On steroids.
Have you ever asked girlfriends or wives their sexually fantasies? Many will say to be forcibly raped by 1 or more men.
Now ask 1000000000 straight teen boys their sexual fantasies, how many do you think will say to be raped by a man?
-
10-21-23 19:58 #13358
Are you joking
Age and gender of children sexually abused by priests:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig3_247523934
Excerpt from New York Times Article, It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage. Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.
The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.
Fewer than about 10 priests in the United States have dared to come out publicly. But gay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don't know what the hell they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/u...speak-out.html
Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".
Here's a hypothetical question.
When you were in grammar school.
What do you think would have been the impact of some female teacher did something with you sexually?
https://people.com/crime/mary-kay-le...i-fualaau-now/
With lots of law enforcement men with my friends and family.
The joke is, prison is for ugly women and stoopid men.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../24/usa.gender
No one is locking up beautiful white women for having sex with their students, nor should they!!
Reply With Quote
Posting Limitations
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
