Californian Judge: Indecent Exposure by Woman not Indecent. Rather Cool Actually... - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**GlictStiply** · 10-21-2006, 06:10 PM

If he ran inside and told his folks, she must be ugly.

**Optosypoeds** · 10-21-2006, 07:04 PM

Indeed.

**Jeaxatoem** · 10-21-2006, 11:56 PM

Depends. Who is your person?

**LottiFurmann** · 10-22-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by BlackCat

If you are a blonde swedish godess, NO!. I you are a typical swedish male YES !!!!

**Dastyh** · 10-22-2006, 12:45 AM

Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread

**HoqCBYMl** · 10-22-2006, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread more like jacked off

Stop posting nekkid pictures of yourself.

**usaneisfiecup** · 10-22-2006, 10:53 PM

Are Americans so repressed that they cannot use the word penis in their laws

**Tarrccrys** · 10-23-2006, 04:35 AM

A decade or two ago, Floriday tried to pass an anti-obscenity ordinance that was so specific it would have violated itself if it'd passed.

**leareliovag** · 10-23-2006, 05:27 AM

[Zkribbler thumbs through the statute looking for its definition of "lap." It appears to be a definition of which heretofore he has been unaware.]

**CxofxJFm** · 10-23-2006, 10:14 AM

He should have asked to borrow his parents camera.

**iNYZgxNC** · 10-24-2006, 03:25 AM

The more I think about the judge's decision, the more stupid I realize it is.

Not only does it ignore the law and is bound to be reversed on appeal, but it is also politically stupid.

First, it's a sexist ruling. So, it'll ge the women's libbers up in arms.
Second, this decision permits a woman's whose been sexually harassing children (okay, a child) to continue. This will get the puritans and family values folks up in arms.
Third, it promotes public indecency.
Four, this lady is probably a few french fries short of a happy meal, but not only will this decision not get her the mental healthcare she needs, but places the government's stamp of approval on her actions.

And somehow, the judge has forgotten that every so often, he comes up for re-election.

This decision will go over real well with the voters.

**rengerts** · 10-24-2006, 03:41 PM

IF his ruling had any relation to the law...but it didn't.

The judge ruled the way he did because (a) he's an idiot who doesn't know the law and/or (b) because regardless of the law, he wants to encourage public nudity.

**chuecaloversvvp** · 10-24-2006, 03:53 PM

Maybe she was really ugly?

I have seen some women under 30 who I wouldn't want to see naked (99.999% of the time)

JM

10-21-2006, 06:10 PM	#1
GlictStiply Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Californian Judge: Indecent Exposure by Woman not Indecent. Rather Cool Actually... If he ran inside and told his folks, she must be ugly. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-21-2006, 07:04 PM	#2
Optosypoeds Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	Indeed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-21-2006, 11:56 PM	#3
Jeaxatoem Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 546 Senior Member	Depends. Who is your person? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-22-2006, 12:03 AM	#4
LottiFurmann Join Date Jan 2008 Posts 4,494 Senior Member	Originally posted by BlackCat If you are a blonde swedish godess, NO!. I you are a typical swedish male YES !!!! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-22-2006, 12:45 AM	#5
Dastyh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-22-2006, 12:52 AM	#6
HoqCBYMl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 408 Senior Member	Originally posted by Chemical Ollie Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread more like jacked off Stop posting nekkid pictures of yourself. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-22-2006, 10:53 PM	#7
usaneisfiecup Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 420 Senior Member	Are Americans so repressed that they cannot use the word penis in their laws Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-23-2006, 04:35 AM	#8
Tarrccrys Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 588 Senior Member	A decade or two ago, Floriday tried to pass an anti-obscenity ordinance that was so specific it would have violated itself if it'd passed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-23-2006, 05:27 AM	#9
leareliovag Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	[Zkribbler thumbs through the statute looking for its definition of "lap." It appears to be a definition of which heretofore he has been unaware.] Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-23-2006, 10:14 AM	#10
CxofxJFm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 464 Senior Member	He should have asked to borrow his parents camera. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-24-2006, 03:25 AM	#11
iNYZgxNC Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	The more I think about the judge's decision, the more stupid I realize it is. Not only does it ignore the law and is bound to be reversed on appeal, but it is also politically stupid. First, it's a sexist ruling. So, it'll ge the women's libbers up in arms. Second, this decision permits a woman's whose been sexually harassing children (okay, a child) to continue. This will get the puritans and family values folks up in arms. Third, it promotes public indecency. Four, this lady is probably a few french fries short of a happy meal, but not only will this decision not get her the mental healthcare she needs, but places the government's stamp of approval on her actions. And somehow, the judge has forgotten that every so often, he comes up for re-election. This decision will go over real well with the voters. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-24-2006, 03:41 PM	#12
rengerts Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 493 Senior Member	IF his ruling had any relation to the law...but it didn't. The judge ruled the way he did because (a) he's an idiot who doesn't know the law and/or (b) because regardless of the law, he wants to encourage public nudity. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-24-2006, 03:53 PM	#13
chuecaloversvvp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 378 Senior Member	Maybe she was really ugly? I have seen some women under 30 who I wouldn't want to see naked (99.999% of the time) JM Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)