When we thought you could not get any lower, and yo are really fucking low, you do this
...who believe the Washington "Moonie" Times are. They lap that fake news up with a spoon and without critical thinking. That's how we got Donald J. (for Jerkwad) Trump.
WTF were they thinking? It will do the opposite and just encourage people to traffic/pimp them.
Trafficking/pimping minors is still a FELONY under the law, NOTHING in this change of the law changes that fact one iota. Fucking a minor for money is also still a FELONY under the new law as well.
You people need to read the law in it's entirety before leaping to the WRONG conclusion.
Yes, the law means that underage prostitutes are no longer going to be prosecuted as "hookers" That much is true.
What the misleading headline doesn't take into account that prostitution is still illegal, as is sex with a minor, and nothing in this law does ANYTHING to change that fact. The only real change is that underage providers are now given "victim status" and since they are not of majority age, I agree they don't have the legal right to "consent" to selling sex for money.
Count me as one righty who actually approves of this law.
and give FM a thousand demerits for lying just as badly as any of the lying lefties of the board.
I just simply congratulated the libs and posted a link.
Therefore you are lying by calling me a liar...10k demerits for you
You're Welcome
-- Modified on 1/5/2017 5:33:12 PM
"When we thought you could not get any lower, and yo are really fucking low, you do this."
Just what do you find "low" about this bill?
and please, do NOT claim it legalizes child prostitution because it most certainly does NOT.
ongratulations for correctly quoting me.
Now you tell and or show me where in my own words did I state or say that “it legalizes child prostitution”. You cannot because I did not, and never did.
Even the linked article did not say it legalizes child prostitution.
The linked article did say in part …..“They may not have technically legalized it, but decriminalizing the act per se will have the same results, while putting exploited children in even more danger.”
It should be clear and obvious, to any reasonable person, that “my own words” is an opinion? You do know what an opinion is.
Again I ask what is the lie? What did I lie about
...The whole reason for your dumbass OP was to make it seem like libs were in favor of child prostitution. You claim your post was "truth, facts and reason." But you struck out on all three counts and now you're brokebackpedaling as fast as you can. Way to stick to your guns, you spineless righty!
And you are total devoid of all three, totally dishonestly distorting and mischaracterizing what I say. But as a lonely miserable outcast doing so is your life.
Where did I claim my post was "truth, facts and reason."? I backpedal nothing It was clearly an opinion, and you being a dishonest scupper trout, are distorting, that fact. My post in reply to matt, that you linked, was just hat a reply to what he said, but you dishonestly distorted that too.
You will, I’m sure, dishonestly distort this post too.
do continue to entertain us with your rants of desperation.
You’re Welcome
IN Obese BrokeBackStabber We Distrus
Is the application of the decriminalization law limited to just minors that are trafficked?
Two cases or examples of potential bad outcomes:
1) If the threat of prosecution is removed from the minor then how much less likely will it be that the traffickers can be adequately prosecuted? In some cases the only solid witness might be the minor and in some of those cases the only way to get them to testify is through the threat of prosecution. That is now affirmatively removed.
2) What if the minor prostitute is not trafficked. Does the law recognize this situation possiblity and if so how do they prove there is no trafficker? An independent provider that is 16 or 17 YO is now immune. Many think it would be a good thing if all providers were immune (regardless of age), especially the independent ones, but with this law there is now a two tiered legal system. Plus there is the fact that some 16 and 17 YOs will enter the business purely because they know they will be immune.
I haven't read the law so maybe these cases are somehow covered? I bet not.
-- Modified on 1/5/2017 11:21:50 PM
right
more proof that libs are vile
we've all had a snootfull of this shit by them
why they lost the election
PLEASE keep it up!
in California’s beautiful prisons which favorably compare to Club Med. This way they can be mentored by Charlie Manson, the Menedez brothers, Leslie Van Houten, and others and re- enter society in their 60s as completely rehabilitated.
Of course, the libs might grouse that the assemblyman’s claim -
"Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California."
is not accurate and is a “ridiculous statement.”
But why bother actually thinking about the Op- ed piece before you post?
Glad to see you are on top of this one as usual, Brooks
Californication looney tunes.
I wouldn't trust CA LE to make the right decision with underage hookers.
Basing my opinion of the law allowing LE's personal interpretation of the law on CA's historical corruption record.
"The law, in fact, includes provisions that officers who encounter these minors shall report the circumstances to the county child welfare agency as abuse or neglect. It also authorizes officers to take a minor engaged in a commercial sex act into temporary custody under some circumstances"
Politifact calls it pants on fire, IMO a more accurate description, hot loin opportunities for pedophiles .
In Californication they trust.
google Oakland police teen sex scandal
they did not legalize the abuse of groundhogs.
You're Welcome
In BrokeBackBully we Distrust
BTW I see you are staring in a commerical
...all your sucking up to GaG hasn't worked. Look what he says about your OP:
"...give FM a thousand demerits for lying just as badly as any of the lying lefties of the board."
libs only PRETEND to care about children
and minorities
and women
to them, it's all about getting power to tell you what to do
cuz they're so very superior
once in a while they expose themselves
like now
-- Modified on 1/5/2017 8:26:56 AM
"Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.
This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances."
ie the child cannot be charged
under 18. Legalized prostitution for minors; what a great idea. California seems to always be on the cutting edge of stupid ideas. We can now redefine what Libs are.
of your stupid posts? 
That you actually think that. However I'm not surprised, since you and your lib pals are sworn enemies of truth, facts and reason.
You're welcome
Here is one for you too.
...Look, he's been proven wrong but he's still claiming his OP is "truth, facts and reason."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!