Add Poll
Options: Text Color Split Pie
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Sep 10th, 2003 at 11:34pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I guess I am speaking of politicians and there puppet masters as well as the puppets they control. Very astute.

Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Sep 9th, 2003 at 6:57am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Are you talking about politicians now?   
I see many of them as nothing but leeches.
I can't really call my cousin the OHP a leech, because he gets payed worse than an Oklahoman teacher, which is pretty bad.  It seems to me that he took the job for the power it gave him.  He has always been that type.
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Sep 9th, 2003 at 2:13am
  Mark & Quote
I kind of disagree, I think most people who become HP or policepersons really want to help and serve. Problem is that there is a darker sort out there much worse than the current priest issue.   

I think most HP does not want to see your brains splattered all over the highway. Many reasons I would assume:

1. It would make them physically ill(the ones that like that want vice/sex/drugs assignments, not HP).

2. They would carry that thought home with them, and I'm sure they want to go home happy as much as we do.

3. If you do spatter your brains, the following occurs:
   a. You no longer pay speeding tickets(loss of revenue).
   b. You no longer pay income taxes just when you   
      were getting or already paying them(the main 
      reason it's a law driven by the feds).
   c. You dependents(if any), becomes more of a burden
      to the systems that already is siphoned for more
      "needy" people that is 2 public servants paid by
      the one they take care of or inflect there will on.
   d. There is a mess to clean up which cost money.
   e. Insurance has to pay out(yep, they lobby well).
   f.  You no longer buy gas, clothes, houses, etc.
      (Again, look at all those taxes lost).

Ok, to get blunt on this, when did the slaves start running their masters. I pay them, they do not earn
there own way in the world. Live off of the live flesh of those who do earn there own way.

Or am I just an exception with a dark view of those who live off of tax revenue that I send them(and a hell of a lot of it, paid more income taxes per year than they earn!).

Aldo 'he that vents lives longer' or is it better?

counterviews anyone?
Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Sep 8th, 2003 at 10:46pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
But isn't that what all law is truly about....just another form of taxation?
Why else would there be a seatbelt law?
Do you really think those jar-heads who work for the highway patrol care whether you live or die in a car crash?
But they do care about raking in as much money through ticketing as they can.  They do care about having the power they have over the commoner.
My cousin is in the highway patrol and out of all my relatives he is the one with the lowest I.Q.
He is the epitomy of dumb, country red-neck who has never read a novel in his life and doesn't even know what an art museum is.  But he is out there cruising around with his dumb, red-neck buddies who joined the O.H.P. and giving people a hard time over not wearing their seatbelts.
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 19th, 2003 at 5:23am
  Mark & Quote
I really hate to say this, but it’s not cops getting jollies or protecting the street. Plain and simple, they found out there is a gold mine in internet entrapments where the “felon” knows good and well to fight it is likened to defending  religious beliefs during the Salem witch trails. Shut up, do your legal “bribery” and go about your business.  I know that the “city” where I was lead to has a statistically biased rate of “protecting” children from sexual predators. I am still working on the class action suite approach, but I need to wait for them to get really greedy for the almighty $$$.  Current calculations from that town would indicate around 13 million US citizens are sexual predators. And by the other stats I have seen, there should be 40,000,000 missing children per year in that case.

Sad thing is the real offenders are more common sense I feel and are getting  by with it while others are placed into the system to line their pockets.

Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Aug 19th, 2003 at 12:16am
  Mark & Quote
Your statement leads one to believe that law enforcement officers are really doing their job to get their jollies as opposed to putting sexual predators in jail.
I have no doubt that there are many of these "psuedo-kids" that are doing just that. Ditto the "child-pornography searchers", who spend their days looking at the vilest pornography around in the name of "justice". "Protect and Serve" my as_. They're sick.
It is a cop's job to catch that predator molesting or attempting to molest a child. It is not their job to "create" a crime for the predator to commit.
I am not "anti-cop", as you state. Some of my best friends are cops, and I lunch regularly with two detectives locally. Guess what. They happen to agree with me. They do a fantastic job, and they do it the old-fashioned way. Oh, and they don't do polygraphs, and never will. Nor do they run "sting" operations, with the exception of opening a pawn shop for a few months just to see what people came in with.
You continue to show your total lack of intelligence in your posts. Keep it up, because the laughs are great.
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 9:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

You write:  "The fact that they do it under the guise of law enforcement does not change that."

Your statement leads one to believe that law enforcement officers are really doing their job to get their jollies as opposed to putting sexual predators in jail.   

You're pretty much anti anything.  Maybe George can create an anti cop website which is probably more in line what you're looking for.  You're a complete bonehead.


Doesn't it bother you just a bit when you see the caliber of people you attract to your ludicrous view?
Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 8:16pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I'm surprised that cops don't just set up fake red-lights that never turn green.  Then they could hide in the shadows and bust those people who run the red light.
Sort of reminds me of that recent "terrorist" the CIA busted and Curious George Bush's war on Iraq.
The CIA went to a retired arms dealer, played the part of a guy interested in buying the weapon and then played the part of a guy who had the weapon to sell to the arms dealer.  So they successfuly inticed the guy to come out of retirement.  And after the bust the Curious George administration wants everyone to feel safer because a battle had been won against terrorism????!!!!
And don't even get me started on Iraq and Curious Georgie's Weapons of Mass Imagination.  

Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 5:04pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Naturally, I don't live for the day I get your "seal of approval", so your comments don't bother me. OkieBoy has done a good job, but I will add to it.
Anybody who pretends to be a minor and engages in sexual discussions with adults has a mental problem. The fact that they do it under the guise of law enforcement does not change that. The Internet is rife with "teen" chat rooms that have no teens in them, only 40 year-old cops pretending to be teenagers. The true "sexual predators" out there aren't stupid enough to frequent these chat rooms, so I see the whole thing as a waste of resources. There is enough crime in the world without the police creating new ones. 
For the record, I'm also opposed to cops pretending to be prostitutes so they can bust johns, cops confiscating drugs and then re-selling them to bust buyers, etc.
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 8:07am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
OkieBoy, you "hit the nail on the head".
There is a "feeding frenzy" out there, to bad for those who had a cheating wife with a younger guy and one who wanted to "one up 'er". Nuff said.

Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 6:36am
  Mark & Quote
There are two sides of the issue you must look at when it comes to police officers posing as underage children looking for sex.
I knew a local detective who's job it was to do so.  He talked to hundreds, sometimes thousands of men on the internet posing as a thirteen year old nympho before he finally caught someone.  He ended up getting a guy from out of state on a first offense for crossing state lines with the intention of having sex with a minor.
Let's look at the pros and cons of this.
Pro:  The police officer prevented a potential future meeting of a willing, sexually active young girl and a sexually deviant man.  The outcome of that sitation would have probably ended in sex between the individuals.
Cons:1)  The police officer basically caused hundreds of thousands of men online to think that there are actually thirteen-year-old girls online looking for sex with older men.  This was a falsity, that probably in itself led to the perpetuation of the crime the police officer was trying to stop.  It probably got some men curious and led them to keep looking for young girls online.
2)  The police officer hooked a man on a first time offense, a man who might have never committed the crime if he had never had the chance.  We are all potential theives walking around.  What would you do if you found a million dollars sitting all alone in a open, country field.  If you took a single dollar you would be a thief.  Why don't police officers just to that?  Why don't they leave money laying in the streets and wait in the shadows for someone to pick it up and arrest them for theft?  Because it would obviously be entrapment and would be wrong.   

Your an idealist Saidme.  It is obvious from what you write.  I used to be like you.  But through life experience and through mistakes of my own I have come to realize not everything is black and white.
There are grey zones out there and the justice system is full of them.   

Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 18th, 2003 at 5:46am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hotel 6? I only stay in the best! Hotel De La Chardier in Canada, the Hotel Del Coronado on Coronado Island. The Hyatt in Tokyo. Don't even go there dude, your below me at best no matter what your "righteous" position may be.

Posted by: Mr. Truth
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 11:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Did you at least have the decency to meet at a place other than a Motel 6?
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 11:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

On one hand I commend you for your advice (or lack thereof) to Huxley.  In that short period of time I thought maybe you aren't as bad as I've envisioned.  Then you turn right around and confirm all I've ever thought.  Why would you call a police officer who is trying to rid the world of child sexual predators a "pervert?"  Does that type of law enforcement operation offend you?  Hmmmm. ???
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 11:18pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 9:55pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I know what you're saying, but under the law it is still a "transfer". The conviction is in Oklahoma, thus any sentence handed down is presumed to be served in that state. Since you lived in Texas, the transfer was somewhat "automatic", but the law still looks at it as having been at your request. After all, you could have taken up residence in Oklahoma and served your sentence there.
You can't sit for the polygraph and plead the 5th on various questions. The examiner will stop the test immediately and send you packing with a "failed to cooperate" note in your file. That will get you kicked out of treatment, etc.
I assume by your comment that you got involved in some type of "discussion" with an "underage person" in a chatroom who turned out to be some perverted cop, or you obtained some child pornography via e-mail?
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 9:45pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Oh, forgot, and if I take the poly as required and take the 5th?


BTW, never touched any child, just in the mind and that's aginst the law....although I never believed this to be a police stae, it is.

Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 9:41pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Thing is I did live in Texas, it was an Oklahoma sting. I did not ask for transfer, that was where I live.

Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 6:01pm
  Mark & Quote
Under the Interstate Corrections Compact, Texas is allowed to impose any conditions on you that it would otherwise impose on its' own probationers, with proper notification of the sentencing court. Sounds like they did this, evidenced by the 2nd form you had to go back and sign.

Keep in mind that your request to transfer is what opened you up to this. Your desire to relocate carried some additional requirements that you had to follow, like it or not. Texas will no doubt tell you that "if you don't like our rules, then you can go back to Oklahoma".

You can't "refuse" the polygraph test. If you do, you will be discharged from the treatment program. This will trigger a violation for "failing to successfully complete treatment". You might also risk the same if you constantly "fail" the polygraph, all the while proclaiming that you are "cured" of your deviant desires.

I hesitate to offer any advice about "beating" the polygraph, because I know nothing of you or your offense. If you did something that was wrong, you must first deal with that within yourself. Much like AA, admitting to yourself and others that you have a problem is the first step to rehabilitation.
Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 17th, 2003 at 5:34pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Situation is that no where in my probation does it state that a poly graph is required. They embedded that in the sex offender course of which I'm an intrerstate transfer from Okla to Texas. The additional paper work that stated that was pushed on my after the court decision. The probation office set me back to the court(without my lawyer) to sign the "2nd" form that required the additional testing. Again, nowhere did it say poly graph. So, what's my options here?

Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Aug 16th, 2003 at 7:21am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What they do depends on your situation.
If you are a registered sex offender on probation and are required to take the polygraph due to probation rules, then your P.O. could put a motion before the Judge to revoke your probation.
It would most likely pass and you would be sent to prison.
But, even while you were in prison, your lawyer could fight the revocation of probation with an appeal, and like the recent case in Virginia, you might actually win and be let free.
In case you don't know about the recent case in Virginia, a sex offender on probation had his probation revoked for failing the polygraph and was sent to jail, but his lawyer filed an appeal and the judge ruled that polygraph results are not enough hard-core information to revoke someone's probation and the sex offender was let free.

Posted by: aldo_huxley
Posted on: Aug 16th, 2003 at 1:57am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Not to move away from the subject here(much), given that a first time offender that has never offended any minor....that means virtual.......if I take the 5th on the poly, what is the best/average/worst they can/will do?

Fear of a pseudoscience? Yep. If they could read my would fine. They "status quo" like to twist the real meaning into THE MEANING (as they see it).


Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Aug 14th, 2003 at 7:30pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Very good. I like your reasoning. There is one other factor involved in some child molestations, and that is curiosity. There are offenders who wanted to know if they could be aroused by a child and in what way.

Posted by: OkieBoy
Posted on: Aug 14th, 2003 at 6:25pm
  Mark & Quote
>>>do you really believe that a person that could fantasize about a young child and then carry out the act, could not be criminally mentally insane?

You are asking a very valid and observant question.  There are two answers to it.  Yes and No.  There are two types of people who commit these crimes.  The criminally insane and the person who is merely using cognitive distortions and can be taught to think properly again through therapy.  The first step in Modern Cognitive Behavorial therapy is to recognize which kind of person the individual is.  If it is assessed that they are criminally insane, then the recommendation is sent to the courts that they not enter probation or therapy and be sent to an institution.  If they are treatable then they are given the chance at treatment and redemption.

By assuming that all people who commit an act like say child molestation are automatically criminally insane and untreatable goes against what the top scientific minds in this country are saying.  
That would be like saying everyone who commits murder is criminally insane and should never be let out of jail.
Let me ask you this PeterFonda.  Say you had an Uncle who committed murder in a fit of jealous rage after finding his wife in bed with another man.  After serving fifty years in prison and being let out again would you let that Uncle around your family?
Say your father killed a man or woman in a DUI incident and went to jail for thirty years and was let out a broken, changed man.  Would you let your father visit your family?
If you answer is yes to either of those questions, is murder no less of a crime than child molestation?

Not every child molestation is merely because a criminally insane individual is sexually aroused by children and can never be cured of that thinking.  Some men as a result of extreme stress factors and extreme cognitive distortions let themselves start thinking a certain way and allowing behaviors to follow that are deviant.  Here is an example.
Joe Schmoe is fired from his job.
His wife nags at him constantly.
He goes home and looks at porn on the computer.
He starts looking at hot teen stripper sites.
He starts fantasizing and masturbating over sixteen year old girls on the hot teen stripper site.
His life gets even more stressed when his wife starts fighting with him.  He doesn't know how to deal with the stress...he is somewhat of a moron.
So he decideds to go out and get him some sixteen-year-old hotty like he sees on the internet.
He sees some little fourteen-to-seventeen year old girl at a park and approaches her.
Angry at his wife, angry at the world, and stressed out of his mind, and horny from the internet porn he rapes the girl.

Is this man criminally insane, or merely responding to his environmental stressors in a cognitively distorted manner?

I'm not saying that this man shouldn't go to jail for a very long time.  I am merely pointing out that he is not "insane".  He hears no voices, he sees no hallucinations, he has no actiosn that label him criminally insane.  He is just a fool who has made a very, very bad decision and who has very, very distorted thinking.  Hopefully, after fourty years of intense cognitive behavorial therapy and hard time he will come to realize what the cognitive distortions were that led up to his behavior.
If he got out of jail after that one offense and could tell me his deviant cycle, explain what his cognitive distortions were, tell me his plan of action and coping methods so that he doesn't slip back into his cycle of deviant behavior, then yes, I would let him around my family.

Sorry for the long answer to a short question you asked.

Posted by: PeterFonda
Posted on: Aug 14th, 2003 at 6:56am
  Mark & Quote

I think you may be comparing yourself, as a person to the monsters. In my state peeing in public is not a crime as long as the person peeing is not attempting to arouse others. I can't count the times I have been forced to pee off the back of my boat, and could have possibly been seen by a female in the far distance. Probably was seen, but as I said before this is not a crime in my state.

Okieboy, it is unfortunate that you have been up close and personal with these monsters. But being the case, do you really believe that a person that could fantasize about a young child and then carry out the act, could not be criminally mentally insane? Be it one time? That being the case, could you truly open up your door to this person if you had a child? I think not..But the general public is expected to forgive and forget.. Right?

I agree with you that I want the best of the best polygraphers assigned to these people..If a confession gets them off the street, I am happy.


Hopefully you recieved my email, and I am assuming that I was correct in my assumption. That being said, we will probably tend to disagree on some of my views concerning this subject..