San Diego Be Careful...read this !

[Guest jc92103]

The linke below is from the latest issue og G & L times regarding

upcoming internet stings.

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/sandiego/sandiego3.asp

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-01 AT 01:09AM (EST)[p]It's good to see that SD's police budget is so flush that they have resources to go after 'victimless crimes' taking place between consenting adults behind closed doors with the aid of private (more or less) electronic communications. Not exactly a public nuisance eyesore pressing the need here... maybe there is a rash of murders and mayhem associated with internet escorts?? If so, it seems to have been effectively hushed up.

 

The good news -- San Diegan's should expect that all their 'important' municipal needs are being met and that there should be no expectation of any tax increase on the horizon since there is enough resources even to chase non-nuisance nuisance crimes.

 

:-(

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-01 AT 00:29AM (EST)[p]During tonight's chat, one of the participant's mentioned that an internet based sting took place in Las Vegas and there was a recent post -- on this board -- about a similar sting in New York. (The New York sting was not reported in the press. However, there was news reports about a NYC police raid of a straight escort service.) I agree, the authorities have bigger and better things to do with their time. I also agree that these stings are a waste of scarce tax dollars -- especially since we are talking about "victimless" crime. (Unless, of course, a pimp or pedophile is involved.) Unfortunately, prostitution is illegal and the fact that there are going to be crack downs is something that every escort and client has to live with. Please be careful out there.

[Bilbo]

I absolutely agree that way, way too much money (as in none is basically enough) is spent on this kind of thing, but when we are listing the victims this basically victimless crime might be said to have, leave us not to forget spouses (of either sex) who believe that they are in closed relationships. However, perhaps all of those cases could be handled under "alienation of affection" laws?

[Guest shadow]

Life sucks sometimes doesn't ?

[Guest reed]

Hmmm...maybe this explains why no San Diego escorts will respond to my IMs or emails as I try to set up an engagement over the weekend

[Guest Topmaul]

I lived in San Diego in the mid-70s. I seem to remember that the police chief ran a mid-afternoon "sting" on a local bath house: 12 officers posed as customers. They managed to arrest 4 guys for consensual sex. Way to go, guys! Glad those Republicans are being so frugal with my tax dollars!!

[Justice]

>Glad those Republicans

>are being so frugal with

>my tax dollars!!

 

I totally agree. Unfortunately, however, the Democrats also organize stings. :-( (Remember, the Dems pander to many constituencies -- including feminists who among other things, argue, that prostitution is a form of exploitation, a form of rape and a possible human rights violation. :o) The Libertarians are the ONLY political party that calls for the repeal of laws prohibiting prostitution. That's something that we all need to think about.)

[Guest regulation]

Neither of the major political parties is going to advocate legalizing prostitution for the simple reason that their polling shows their voters don't like the idea. With regard to the libertarians, I'm not sure what it is we're supposed to think about. They're a fringe group with virtually no impact on policy at any level of government.

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01 AT 07:10PM (EST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01 AT 06:39 PM (EST)

 

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01 AT 06:28 PM (EST)

 

>Neither of the major political parties

>is going to advocate legalizing

>prostitution for the simple reason

>that their polling shows their

>voters don't like the idea.

 

Sad but true!

 

> With regard to the

>libertarians, I'm not sure what

>it is we're supposed to

>think about. They're a

>fringe group with virtually no

>impact on policy at any

>level of government.

 

Also sad but true. They (and other third parties) may start to have an impact on government policy if more and more people stop voting for parties -- like both the democrats and the republicans -- that try to be all things to all people. That's something that I think about whenever I go to the polls. (I'm a registered democrat who hasn't voted along straight party lines in a long, long time. I frequently vote for third party candidates and I've actually voted for "Mickey Mouse" (as a write in candidate) in several local elections. (Those votes actually got reported in the local press i.e., and Mickey Mouse got 1 vote! :-)) The major political parties may stop pandering to their extreme supporters, when they realize that more and more people are voting for candidates and causes that are being advanced by the so-called fringe parties.)

[Guest regulation]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01

>AT 07:10 PM (EST)

>

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01

>AT 06:39 PM (EST)

>

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-01

>AT 06:28 PM (EST)

>

>>Neither of the major political parties

>>is going to advocate legalizing

>>prostitution for the simple reason

>>that their polling shows their

>>voters don't like the idea.

>

>Sad but true!

 

Why is that sad? Are you saying that political parties should ignore what the voters want? If there is any purpose for their existence, it is to transmit the wishes of the voters to government.

 

 

>

>> With regard to the

>>libertarians, I'm not sure what

>>it is we're supposed to

>>think about. They're a

>>fringe group with virtually no

>>impact on policy at any

>>level of government.

>

>Also sad but true. They (and

>other third parties) may start

>to have an impact on

>government policy if more and

>more people stop voting for

>parties -- like both the

>democrats and the republicans --

>that try to be all

>things to all people. That's

>something that I think about

>whenever I go to the

>polls. (I'm a registered democrat

>who hasn't voted along straight

>party lines in a long,

>long time. I frequently vote

>for third party candidates and

>I've actually voted for "Mickey

>Mouse" (as a write in

>candidate) in several local elections.

>(Those votes actually got reported

>in the local press i.e.,

>and Mickey Mouse got 1

>vote! :-)) The major political

>parties may stop pandering to

>their extreme supporters, when they

>realize that more and more

>people are voting for candidates

>and causes that are being

>advanced by the so-called fringe

>parties.)

 

I think someone should mention that refusing to support legalized prostitution is not considered an "extreme" position by anyone other than the habitues of this Web site. It's really the other way around, in fact.

 

Let's be honest about the problem here. The problem is not that politicians or parties or cops are pursuing some agenda of their own. The problem is that most of our fellow citizens are just fine with criminalizing prostitution. All of the government actions you're complaining about are merely an expression of real public sentiment.

[Justice]

Since you obviously have problems with the subject matter of this site, what are YOU doing here?

[Guest regulation]

>Since you obviously have problems with

>the subject matter of this

>site, what are YOU doing

>here?

 

I find the subject of this site quite interesting. But the fact that I don't share all of YOUR opinions on that subject doesn't mean that I don't have the right to participate in a discussion of the subject, isn't that correct?

 

If you can't stand hearing any opinions that differ from yours, why do you visit a message board? You should just talk to yourself.