December 10, 2010
— Ace I'm not sure who the victim is -- they're doing that thing where they protect the victim's identity, but this is sort of nonsensical in an incest case, as we know it would have to be close blood relative (daughter, most likely) -- but at least he waited until she was 18 to start having sex with her.
Horrifying.
His defense? "I don't look like an incest-freak pedo or anything."
Posted by: Ace at
12:06 PM
| Comments (358)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Clownballoon at December 10, 2010 12:09 PM (2eGS3)
And why shouldn't men & daughters be allowed to marry? Answer me that!
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:09 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:10 PM (TpXEI)
Why do you people hate those who are different so much?
According to Coulter's post on this, the victim is his 24 year old daughter. Charming.
Oh in that case fry the bastard.
Posted by: Kevin jennings at December 10, 2010 12:10 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Clownballoon at December 10, 2010 04:09 PM (2eGS3)
In our post-feminist world, isn't he as much HER victim as vice versa?
(OK, ok, I'm being a wiseguy... )
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:10 PM (tJjm/)
And why shouldn't men & daughters be allowed to marry? Answer me that!
Good point.
Posted by: Fallen Sparrow at December 10, 2010 12:11 PM (KGBoc)
Because...because...HOMOPHOBE!
Posted by: Standard Libertarian response at December 10, 2010 12:11 PM (TpXEI)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 04:09 PM (tJjm/)
Reichwing bible thumpers! In fact, this would make the institution of marriage stronger!!!
Wait. Men and daughters? Uh, never mind me...
Posted by: Your Average Kos Kid at December 10, 2010 12:12 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: joncelli© at December 10, 2010 12:12 PM (RD7QR)
If they both were consenting adults, how can there be a victim? It should be co-defendants.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 10, 2010 12:12 PM (rplS1)
According to Coulter's post on this, the victim is his 24 year old daughter.
24?
That's despicable!
Posted by: Roman Polanski at December 10, 2010 12:12 PM (Du9+F)
Posted by: Some Other Huffpo Writer at December 10, 2010 12:13 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Some Other Huffpo Writer at December 10, 2010 04:13 PM (7BU4a)
See! That's all he was trying to do! Vaccination by injection!!
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:15 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 10, 2010 12:15 PM (MiG8u)
If it was his son could they get married, then?
Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2010 12:16 PM (Du9+F)
Right-wing, Jeebus-loving hypocrisy!
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at December 10, 2010 12:16 PM (xqhoO)
The world is a strange place, folks.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:17 PM (tJjm/)
In our post-feminist world, isn't he as much HER victim as vice versa?
(OK, ok, I'm being a wiseguy... )
Don't say that, you're exactly right. If this was rape then he should be charged with rape. If it was just incest, then they both should be charged, there is no victim.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 10, 2010 12:17 PM (rplS1)
I just thought he didn't like blue bloods.
Posted by: Big Meggy McC at December 10, 2010 12:18 PM (1Ialr)
Posted by: cameo at December 10, 2010 12:18 PM (FJiM0)
If it was his son could they get married, then?
Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2010 04:16 PM (Du9+F)
Would that even be considered incest? This strange new world does not compute...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:18 PM (tJjm/)
Oh great, so they're necrophiliacs too?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:18 PM (TpXEI)
Love is a beautiful thing between two people, no matter their age or blood ties to each other you fucking H8ers.
Posted by: Typical liberal asshole comment at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (3jZ02)
if he waited until she was 18 shouldn't she be charged with incest as well?
Posted by: cameo at December 10, 2010 04:18 PM (FJiM0)
Well that's kind of what I was saying: arguably, he's as much a "victim" as she is. Lock up both of them, unless he raped her.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (tJjm/)
As a concerned conservative Christian, let me just refer you to the 19th book of Genesis, and the tale of Lot's daughters. There, see?
This guy is a concerned conservative Christian, isn't he? Because if he isn't, he is, in Old Testament parlance, so boned.
Posted by: comatus at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (hrwMe)
Posted by: cameo at December 10, 2010 04:18 PM (FJiM0)
Yes.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (rplS1)
Who the hell names their kid that?
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (aLYDw)
Posted by: Sponge © at December 10, 2010 12:19 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:20 PM (yY28H)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:20 PM (tJjm/)
@6 - It was consenting, so it wasn't rape. She was 24, so she was an adult.
While this is creepy and nasty, if the libs are going to push homosexual marriage, then this must be legal too. Watch the defense for this try to have the incest laws ruled unconstitutional, same as the sodomy laws.
Posted by: JtheSaint at December 10, 2010 12:20 PM (+Awp3)
His defense? "I don't look like an incest-freak pedo or anything."
Jesus. Have you looked in a mirror Mama/daughter/son/baby fucker? You look like fucking Chester the Molester.
Posted by: maddogg at December 10, 2010 12:20 PM (OlN4e)
Why lock them up? I thought we couldn't judge people based on this kind of stuff. I thought we were supposed to keep the government out of bedrooms.
I guess that only applies to gays for some reason.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:21 PM (TpXEI)
You have to account for the awesome power of his manliness, as pictured above, which rendered the adult woman in question helpless to resist the penis.
...until she ratted him, presumably. For her fucking him. Like, a bunch of times. Because of the manly power. That he has. Until lately, I guess.
You see the power, right? You feel how you have to take the penis. Right?
Posted by: oblig. at December 10, 2010 12:21 PM (x7Ao8)
Who the hell names their kid that?
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at December 10, 2010 04:19 PM (aLYDw)
So he got caught squeezing the Charming?
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:21 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: The Blue People of Kentucky at December 10, 2010 12:21 PM (GGEUV)
What's that on his chin?
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:22 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 12:22 PM (yvnFu)
What...I don't get it...what's the big deal?
Posted by: Flowers In The Attic at December 10, 2010 12:22 PM (9Blbi)
Posted by: Prof. David Epstein (Inmate #24601) at December 10, 2010 12:23 PM (5Rurq)
Posted by: SeanPencildick at December 10, 2010 12:23 PM (o3bYL)
Add me to the CoolCzech camp -- this sort of thing is no more wrong than two guys marrying under our the societal norms that the Progressives are pushing.
Posted by: Y-not at December 10, 2010 12:23 PM (IDL9N)
And I'm wondering if there's a Mrs. Epstein in the picture. I suspect not.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 10, 2010 12:24 PM (pAlYe)
That's DOCTOR daughter-humper dammit!
Posted by: DOCTOR Amy Bishop at December 10, 2010 12:24 PM (BvBKY)
Posted by: John Phillips at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: JtheSaint at December 10, 2010 04:20 PM (+Awp3)
Unintentional consequences, surely you jest.
Posted by: Lawrence v. Texas at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (BvBKY)
Posted by: ace at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (nj1bB)
It is an open question, at least in my mind, as to whether the chicken or the egg came first. Is it because they view themselves as more moral that they do this or is it because they do this that they must view themselves as more moral.
One of my first cases was a peeping tom who insisted that while it may have looked like he was peeping he actually had taken it upon himself to act as a one man neighborhood watch program. He was sacrificing his time to help keep the neighborhood safe. I've heard many times that the defendant was simply trying to help out the poor child who was neglected by his or her parents.
I suspect that they think that they have made a deal with God that if they are particularly moral by, say, taxing the rich in order to give to the poor, then God will overlook this one little indulgence.
All of this, of course, is fully consistent with an ivy league political science professor who posts on a far leftist website about the obligation of the rich to help the less fortunate.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (xxgag)
Now this is important...
Did you yell ,"Surprise!", before or after you turned on the lights?...
You didn't yell, "Surprise!" at all?...
Your Honor, I move to dismiss. She saw it coming.
Posted by: Cross examination by Swedish Defense Lawyer at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (Du9+F)
Who the fuck are you to judge us?
Posted by: King Charismatic and Queen Winsome at December 10, 2010 12:25 PM (xqhoO)
Thanks to Bevel I now know they are bad laws because of something having to do with teh gheys.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at December 10, 2010 12:26 PM (aLYDw)
Posted by: John Phillips at December 10, 2010 04:25 PM (OKZrE)
Damnit, I don't think I can ever watch reruns of that show again...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:26 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Billy C. at December 10, 2010 04:26 PM (mE0Rl)
Not with her Dad's fingerprints on her ass, she ain't!
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:27 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Billy C. at December 10, 2010 04:26 PM (mE0Rl)
Going but genetics, probably not.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 10, 2010 12:27 PM (rplS1)
I wonder if he's opposed to ROTC at Columbia. Because it would be a shame if he were denied his right to serve the nation over something like this.
Who asked, and who told, is what inquiring minds need to know.
Posted by: comatus at December 10, 2010 12:28 PM (hrwMe)
I see we've found the next Safe Schools Czar.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at December 10, 2010 12:28 PM (3jZ02)
So it would be okay if it was his son? And if he gets a vasectomy (he has one) does that make it okay?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:28 PM (TpXEI)
that sex offenders view themselves as better than the average bear, or at least want you to think that they are.
Yep.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 10, 2010 12:29 PM (Ty06w)
Posted by: Jeffrey Dahmer at December 10, 2010 12:30 PM (QKKT0)
Well, if it WASN'T rape and she was a willing participant, she should be jailed for incest and sent to immediate therapy. He should be SHOT ON THE SPOT for raising her in an environment where that's OK as long as you're over 18!!!!
He's a threat to society and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Sponge © at December 10, 2010 12:30 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: David Epstein at December 10, 2010 12:30 PM (Q1lie)
"...that sex offenders view themselves as better than the average bear, or at least want you to think that they are."
Yep.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 10, 2010 04:29 PM (Ty06w)
Well so do liberals. Hey...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:30 PM (tJjm/)
If Coulter's post is correct, and she's 24- then I have some questions:
Is she, also, accused of Incest?
If not, does that mean she was raped?
If she was raped, why not charge him with that?
If she wasn't raped, why not also charge her with incest (assuming the answer to the second question is 'no').
The same questions should, technically, apply even if she's 18, but I can see how the difference between 17 & 18 might not be enough to allow a daughter to 'consent' if she's still only 18. By 24, either she's old enough to consent even with her dad (ick) or she's been abused for far longer than that and 'Incest' isn't strong enough of a charge.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 12:31 PM (8y9MW)
Who the hell names their kid that?
Please don't squeeze the Charming.
Posted by: Mr. Whipple at December 10, 2010 12:31 PM (MMC8r)
Wow,Obama's Professor a Sex-Freak."Surprise"!(NOT)
That's His Rank and File
Bi-Sexual Revolution of the 60's,Bill & Hillary,Bill & Bernadine Ayers,Charlie Manson & Abortion Girls.
You Know Obama Sick Puppy Administration & Marxist
Congress.
Frank Marshall Davis & Wife, Obama's Mentor,Bi-Sexual relation with Obama's Mother So been told.Even rummors Frank is Barry's real Daddy?
But, Suprised ("No Way")!
Posted by: Dinkiedow at December 10, 2010 12:32 PM (h88pA)
Posted by: Prof. David Epstein at December 10, 2010 12:32 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Cicero at December 10, 2010 12:32 PM (QKKT0)
You have to account for the awesome power of his manliness, as pictured above, which rendered the adult woman in question helpless to resist the penis.
What's that on his chin?
His son's balls?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 10, 2010 12:33 PM (6kyQC)
Posted by: Prof. David Epstein at December 10, 2010 12:34 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 04:22 PM (tJjm/)
the air of smugness
Posted by: The Dude at December 10, 2010 12:34 PM (Ig1Wo)
Posted by: Dr. Amy Bishop! at December 10, 2010 12:34 PM (Du9+F)
OK, now for some fun, if you are thinking about the "why should incest be between consenting adults" question, let's flip the cultural switch.
Suppose he were a non-LDS Mormon living with multiple "wives" in the mountains and one of those wives happened to be his 24-year-old daughter.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 12:35 PM (BvBKY)
Seriously.
Obama is standing there listening to Clinton and surely thinking to himself:
"Oooooh. So that's how it's done!"
Posted by: Teh Ahnold at December 10, 2010 12:35 PM (hBsqk)
Besides looking like a pedo-freak, does that photo look like he's consumed more than his share of smug-pie?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 10, 2010 12:35 PM (6kyQC)
If not, does that mean she was raped?
If she was raped, why not charge him with that?
If she wasn't raped, why not also charge her with incest (assuming the answer to the second question is 'no').
The problem is that even if she consented, the fact that he is her father give him incredible influence over her. The question is whether or not she can truly consent under those conditions. It may not be enough to slap a statutory rape charge against him, but enough that to justify banning incest.
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:35 PM (yY28H)
Posted by: Woody Allen at December 10, 2010 12:35 PM (aLYDw)
Posted by: texette at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (TATbF)
They can be, actually.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (TpXEI)
What the hell is it with Poli Sci professors?
And this guy looks certifiable as well.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 10, 2010 04:34 PM (pLTLS)
Oh, lacey...do I have to say it? 
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (BvBKY)
I will truly never be able to understand pedo's. I don't get it. There is little on this earth that is more perplexing or disgusting to me.
I don't know how the human mind can even allow for such deprevity.
Of course get ready for every conservative website to say it's not a indictment of all liberal bloggers, that huffpo isn't resposbile in any way, etc etc etc.
Yeah, I'm sure they'd give you the same benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Ben at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: David Epstein at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (Q1lie)
IIRC, in some states they can both be charged.
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (yY28H)
Columbia...it figures.
Put him in general population and sit back and enjoy the show.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:36 PM (iYbLN)
Right. In Colorado (and other states I assume) it is no defense that there is no biological relationship. Adoptive parents, step-parents and the like can also be charged. Obviously, it is not merely the danger of giving birth to two headed babies that is the evil sought to be avoided. This is intended to protect the institution of the family. As others have noted, protecting the family or even recognizing the existence of the family is not high on the priority list for progressives. It would not shock me to see this prohibition overturned either by statute or by the finding of a new constitutional right. I've seen stranger things happen.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2010 12:37 PM (xxgag)
If it was, like, a second cousin then that's OK right? Right?
Posted by: The Blue People of Kentucky
Ah, the "Blue Fugates of Kentucky."
But I don't think they were inbred, just suffering from a blood enzyme deficiency: "Methemoglobinemia."
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 10, 2010 12:37 PM (QMtmy)
is anyone watching fox?
What is Bill Clinton doing giving a press conference from the white house? Did he get re-elected a third time? Is Obama such a weak man that he's having clinton do everything now?
Posted by: Ben at December 10, 2010 12:37 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Alex
Ah society. The same society that is foisting upon poor put upon homosexuals the lie that they are a threat to marriage or the military. You're all just jealous because their family is closer together than yours. And as for your hating Papists, other people have heard of birth control. So its all good.
Besdies, we're supposed to be having a truce on those divisive social issues that are a drag. Watch it all you social cons.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:37 PM (R2fpr)
do I have to say it?
I almost put a 'this is rhetorical' on there as I wasn't sure you were with us today, AD 
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 10, 2010 12:37 PM (pLTLS)
"Oooooh. So that's how it's done!"
Posted by: Monica knows Bill at December 10, 2010 12:38 PM (Du9+F)
Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 10, 2010 12:38 PM (f9c2L)
Well, I won't be going to Colorado any time soon.
Posted by: Woody Allen at December 10, 2010 12:38 PM (TpXEI)
What is Bill Clinton doing giving a press conference from the white house? Did he get re-elected a third time? Is Obama such a weak man that he's having clinton do everything now?
They're Consenting Adults!
Posted by: Lefty Moonbat at December 10, 2010 12:39 PM (Du9+F)
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:39 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:39 PM (tJjm/)
What is Bill Clinton doing giving a press conference from the white house? Did he get re-elected a third time? Is Obama such a weak man that he's having clinton do everything now?
He is the political William Shatner. He thinks he did. Yes.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 12:40 PM (BvBKY)
Posted by: The Dude at December 10, 2010 12:40 PM (Ig1Wo)
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 04:39 PM (iYbLN)
Can you even BEGIN to imagine? OMG...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:40 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Alex
If onlt it had been father and son, and they had both enlisted. Then they would have been magically protected/too mature for this sort of thing. NTTATWWT.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:41 PM (R2fpr)
I almost put a 'this is rhetorical' on there as I wasn't sure you were with us today, AD
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 10, 2010 04:37 PM (pLTLS)
I'm still not all here. But I try.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 12:41 PM (BvBKY)
If I was this perv's wife
You wouldn't be. These are idiot women that cry 'but I didn't know.....sob.....more sobs.....I just didn't....sob.....know!!!!1!!!1!' They piss me off every bit as much as their asshole husbands.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 10, 2010 12:41 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 12:42 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: maddogg at December 10, 2010 12:42 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 12:42 PM (yvnFu)
Posted by: CoolCzech
Pop-up, scratch-n-sniff- or 'activities'?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:42 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, the Other White Meat at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM (Idoz0)
Actually, I'm a filthy Papist.
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM (yY28H)
I was called up for Jury Duty once where the guy was in for indecency to a child on two counts. That was my reaction, so I didn't make it too long in the discussion. They sent me home early.
Posted by: Sponge © at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM (2gvSF)
Posted by: maddogg
Maybe there's a bandcamp thing going on here (see NASA thread).
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:43 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 12:44 PM (yvnFu)
You wouldn't be. These are idiot women that cry 'but I didn't know.....sob.....more sobs.....I just didn't....sob.....know!!!!1!!!1!' They piss me off every bit as much as their asshole husbands.
Posted by: laceyunderallslacey,
You have to wonder at what age he started to groom her for this kind of behavior. It had to start out very young so that by the time she was 18 she would find it acceptable. How about the young women in his classes? What kind of shit has been going and for how long?
Gives me the creeps.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:44 PM (iYbLN)
Actually, I'm a filthy Papist.
Posted by: Alex
Dude, how's it going? I'm a Papist bograt.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:44 PM (R2fpr)
That, or they join in. *retch*
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:44 PM (yY28H)
Posted by: The Hammer at December 10, 2010 12:44 PM (32ubA)
I'm thinking that the first thing Clinton did was check under the desk. To see if Barak got him a 'surprise' guest.
Posted by: CUS at December 10, 2010 12:45 PM (wOGfT)
You wouldn't be. These are idiot women that cry 'but I didn't know.....sob.....more sobs.....I just didn't....sob.....know!!!!1!!!1!' They piss me off every bit as much as their asshole husbands.
Usually it's more like "It's all HER fault! She was always coming on to him, from the time she could walk, she was always giving him that look. He's a good man but that little skank..." etc etc etc...
Enablers.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 10, 2010 12:45 PM (Ty06w)
Posted by: CoolCzech
Pop-up, scratch-n-sniff- or 'activities'?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 04:42 PM (R2fpr)
"Daddy Has Two Heads"
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:45 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Cain at December 10, 2010 12:45 PM (AdK6a)
Is is really the function of the state to uphold this?
People argue that porn should be banned for the same reason. Or rock and roll back in the day.
Posted by: James
Perhaps not. We could just let lynch mobs do it. We could probably sell tickets for this one.
Posted by: I am James' spleen at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: maddogg at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, the Other White Meat at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (Idoz0)
His defense? "I don't look like an incest-freak pedo or anything."
Yeah, yeah, you do. Sorry, Charlie, but the facts are the facts.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (1hM1d)
I think they can be, technically. Usually they're not: following the idea that being fundamentally unable to consent, they're also fundamentally unable to coerce. Or something like that.
Posted by: The Blue People of Kentucky at December 10, 2010 04:21 PM (GGEUV)
Actually, my understanding is that most states don't consider 2nd cousins to be closely related enough to be incest.
It wasn't even until relatively recently, historically speaking, that 1st cousins were off limits.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at December 10, 2010 12:46 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: navybrat at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (+upNl)
What is Bill Clinton doing giving a press conference from the white house? Did he get re-elected a third time? Is Obama such a weak man that he's having clinton do everything now?
The Adult is Running Interference for the Child.
I, for one, rejoice in, and support Obama's Tax-Cuts for the Rich.
Posted by: franksalterego at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (+6fgE)
James
Are you kidding??? Comparing incest to porn or rock and roll? Are you fucking retarded? Wait, I'll answer that...you obviously are.
You are one sick fuck.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (pAlYe)
You have to wonder at what age he started to groom her for this kind of behavior. It had to start out very young so that by the time she was 18 she would find it acceptable. How about the young women in his classes? What kind of shit has been going and for how long?
Gives me the creeps.
Boundaries (like between adults and children) are what keep civilization from collapsing. Get rid of the boundaries, stop protecting the helpless and we're doomed.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (Ty06w)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (AZGON)
If Obama keeps this up, in two years he will have at least one item on his short list of accomplishments.
Posted by: Bitchen Meg at December 10, 2010 12:47 PM (tE8FB)
Can you imagine the Epstein Family Holiday Newsletter 2010?
Collector's Edition, for sure.
Posted by: garrett
Relatives were chagrined to recall that the family photo was always staged under mistletoe.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:48 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 12:49 PM (AZGON)
Why do you think I opted for sex with alien strange?
I thought it was because you lived so close to Mexico.
Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2010 12:49 PM (Du9+F)
Oh, and are they going to charge her with incest, as well? it seems like she went along with the arrangement. Maybe even enjoyed it?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 12:49 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: joncelli© at December 10, 2010 12:49 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 10, 2010 12:49 PM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Beefy Meatball at December 10, 2010 12:50 PM (YYaIP)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 12:50 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 12:50 PM (yvnFu)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:51 PM (tJjm/)
No, that just means you are the average everyday pervy horndog neighbor looking through his curtains.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:51 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: David Epstein at December 10, 2010 12:52 PM (Q1lie)
Then adultery should be illegal too.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 04:51 PM (TpXEI)
Actually it IS in many jurisdictions, but the military UCMJ is about the only one to be taken seriously.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:52 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 04:09 PM (tJjm/)
Exactly! I'm getting tired of the bigots here who are against same-family marriage!
Posted by: Assholes on this site who always says this shit when "gay marriage" is brought up at December 10, 2010 12:52 PM (ysCLj)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 12:52 PM (AZGON)
No, that just means you are the average everyday pervy horndog neighbor looking through his curtains.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 04:51 PM (iYbLN)
You say that as though it's a bad thing...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:53 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at December 10, 2010 04:52 PM (xqhoO)
Poor daughter never had a chance.
Posted by: Tami at December 10, 2010 12:53 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: Sponge © at December 10, 2010 12:53 PM (UK9cE)
You know it's ok not to be the contrarian on everything.
Posted by: goldbricker esq at December 10, 2010 12:53 PM (GkMfH)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 04:52 PM (AZGON)
I was a PolySci major, and I turned out fine! Right?
What??
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (tJjm/)
Me a dumbass?
Yes the State should be the arbiter of standards in this type of behavior. Sweet Jesus some people don't understand/care about boundaries or are just plain fucking sick.
Oh and fuck you.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (iYbLN)
That depends. Has he returned your hedge trimmer that he borrowed two months ago? If not, she's fair game.
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (yY28H)
It wasn't even until relatively recently, historically speaking, that 1st cousins were off limits.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 04:46 PM (8y9MW)
Actually genetically speaking 1st cousin marriages are pretty safe - there's only like a 2-3% higher chance of birth defects/genetic disorders. It's really only a problem in cultures where cousin marriage is so widespread that you get cumulative inbreeding e.g. much of the Arab world, certain European royalty.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (pAlYe)
Daddy, why is Santa wearing an orange jumpsuit?
Posted by: George Orwell
Daddy, Why is Santa pointing at me and yelling, "Ho, Ho, Ho"?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 12:55 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, the Other White Meat at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (Idoz0)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at December 10, 2010 04:52 PM (xqhoO)
Oof.
Posted by: Cicero at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 04:54 PM (yY28H)
Maybe he's trimming her hedges for her...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (BvBKY)
Is Obama such a weak man that he's having clinton do everything now?
Yes. Such a bad move for an already pathetic person.
Posted by: Annabelle at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM (Zeljq)
It kind of is since when the couple gets divorced, the adulterer is the one that usually ends up paying the restitution as punishment.
Posted by: Sponge © at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (UK9cE)
David Lester Epstein. Ha.
No, that just means you are the average everyday pervy horndog neighbor looking through his curtains.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 04:51 PM (iYbLN)
So, can we come over when she's taking a dip in the pool?
Posted by: CUS at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (wOGfT)
I could argue (won't 'cause I'm not sure I believe it, but I could) that the State has not only the right, but the obligation to do just that.
That the family is the "building block of Society" is not just some trite phrase; there are some very specific and far-reaching beneficial ramifications of that idea. If we don't protect that idea, we don't protect those benefits of it.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 04:51 PM (TpXEI)
I'm pretty sure it is, technically. I know it used to be. It's not prosecuted any more, but I think its still on the books. And I would point out that it becoming "normal" is part of why not everyone on this thread is completely horrified and sickened by this event.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (8y9MW)
I think if adultery were prosecuted, liberals would pound the sand about the government being in the bedroom.
But by the litmus test put forward - horrible effects to the community and family - adultery is one of the nastiest actions ever. There's a reason it's near murder and theft in the ten commandments.
But we as a society largely ignore that and just let it happen. We're very selective about things. That's what's so annoying.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (TpXEI)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at December 10, 2010 04:52 PM (xqhoO)
Oof.
Posted by: Cicero at December 10, 2010 04:56 PM (QKKT0)
Wow, so we can charge him with screwing his daughter AND his dog!
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (tJjm/)
5:18 PM May 16th, 2009 via web
http://twitter.com/profdave
"Another pet peeve of mine, being arrested for incest..."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2010 12:58 PM (yea0z)
Even we make fun of those daughter humpers!
Posted by: Columbia Philosophy Department at December 10, 2010 04:54 PM (Du9+F)
Oh, please, you wussies.
Posted by: Math department at Directional State University, Podunk Campus at December 10, 2010 12:58 PM (BvBKY)
That depends. Has he returned your hedge trimmer that he borrowed two months ago? If not, she's fair game.
No. But I caught his dog taking a dump on my lawn.
Posted by: Beefy Meatball at December 10, 2010 12:58 PM (YYaIP)
Fuck this shitbag. The jokes aren't funny,the subject is disgusting, and I'm damn glad this shitsplat will never cross my path.
Guess we better grab the lab and take a long walk.
Enjoy your day.
Posted by: irongrampa at December 10, 2010 12:58 PM (ud5dN)
Posted by: John Galt at December 10, 2010 12:58 PM (NLWij)
Posted by: maddogg at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (OlN4e)
I am utterly dumbfounded that people are failing to see the OBJECTIVE MORAL WRONG of incest.
They must not have children. If you are a normal functioning human being, just the thought of your child naked (in that way) does and should give you a feeling of revulsion. That, or they are just too fucking stupid to live.
It's true what Chesterton said: pure rational materialism is like the insanity of a purely rational psychopath. Everything makes sense, but the circle is drawn far too tight to let any part of real life seep in.
That's what we get for allowing pure, untethered, consistency-of-logic rationalism to become our only acceptable thought process.
Posted by: s'moron at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (UaxA0)
People argue that porn should be banned for the same reason. Or rock and roll back in the day.
I'm guessing that you are trying to be funny. the only thing is, when you go for a joke such as this, you can't hold back. You have to go all the way with it. Otherwise, you leave people standing there with their heads cocked to one side as if they're dog looking at a three-headed cat.
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (hBsqk)
Posted by: Roman P at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (32ubA)
People use that justification to argue to ban all kinds of things, including porn, alcohol, even TV.
Thus, if incest is to be illegal (and I'm not saying is shouldn't be) it requires a higher standard than that.
Posted by: James
Word. Next thing you know, they'll be spouting shit like, "We the People, in order to promote the general welfare and domestic tranquility". What utter twaddle.
Posted by: I am James' spleen at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 10, 2010 04:54 PM (pAlYe)
I see no problem here. Carry on.
Posted by: The Duke of Sammich at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (pr+up)
Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at December 10, 2010 12:59 PM (wd0Iq)
Posted by: toby928™ at December 10, 2010 01:00 PM (S5YRY)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 01:00 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Gyorzhe Ohrwelle at December 10, 2010 01:01 PM (AZGON)
But we as a society largely ignore that and just let it happen.
Nope. Adultery is dealt with in the proper venue. Divorce court. And if the spouse decides that the family can survive it, then they don't take action.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2010 01:01 PM (BvBKY)
Who asked, and who told, is what inquiring minds need to know.
Perhaps they where caught in flagrante delicto? pictures? sex tape???
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 01:01 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 01:01 PM (Z4T49)
I hope the next thread is something more... palatable.
Can we? At least the monkey dick pictures were funny.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 10, 2010 01:02 PM (QMtmy)
I could argue (won't 'cause I'm not sure I believe it, but I could) that the State has not only the right, but the obligation to do just that.
That the family is the "building block of Society" is not just some trite phrase; there are some very specific and far-reaching beneficial ramifications of that idea. If we don't protect that idea, we don't protect those benefits of it.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 04:51 PM (TpXEI)
Pet Peeve here... States, or Governments, HAVE NO RIGHTS!
Rights are either Natural, or endowed by our Creator, States are a creation of Man and have Powers, and Limitations.
When you elevate the STATE to a being... when you personify it... when you say it has RIGHTS (and because Rights cannot be taken away), you continue the Meme that we are not in Control of the State.
And when you speak of the "interst" of the State... as if its a thnking entity unto itself??? You then sever the idea that PEOPLE are responsible for what the State does.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2010 01:02 PM (AdK6a)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 05:01 PM (1hM1d)
Dude... if she looks anything like Daddy...
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 01:02 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: toby928™ at December 10, 2010 05:00 PM (S5YRY)
The bustier and stiletto heels he gave her on her 21st birthday should have been a dead giveaway that something was up.
Posted by: Cicero at December 10, 2010 01:02 PM (QKKT0)
Guy is slated to be a meat heavy bag for all the lifers to work out on .
Posted by: awkward davies at December 10, 2010 01:03 PM (YCW1b)
Posted by: George Orwell at December 10, 2010 01:03 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 10, 2010 01:04 PM (pLTLS)
It's the Abuse of Trust, Stupid
This is what Dante reserved his ninth circle of hell for - the combination of selfishness, ruthlessness, and sense of entitlement that leads someone to take advantage of the trust bestowed on them by their fellow citizens. It's the same reason people are mad at Wall Street - we accepted their huge salaries and trusted them to make our markets work, then found out they were only in it for themselves. Time after time, Republicans abused power, hid what they were doing, then lied to us about it, all in the putative cause of keeping us safe, but really, it turns out, to save their own skins.
Huffpo 2009
"Now, let me tell you about my kid..."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2010 01:04 PM (yea0z)
The bustier and stiletto heels he gave her on her 21st birthday should have been a dead giveaway that something was up.
Posted by: Cicero at December 10, 2010 05:02 PM (QKKT0)
What about the Victoria's Secret Credit Card when she was 15?
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 01:05 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 10, 2010 01:06 PM (KClEE)
I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD.
Posted by: Joliet Jake Blues at December 10, 2010 01:06 PM (8lSIO)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at December 10, 2010 01:06 PM (/U/Mr)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 01:06 PM (Z4T49)
Hey, Dr. Varno, I saw you moonlighting the other night as ship's doctor on Captain' Pike's Enterprise. What, you don't get paid enough to live in an underground post-nuclear wasteland?
Posted by: George Orwell at December
That was my twin brother Dr. Boyce. He makes a mean martini. Starfleet pays a lot more than the clowns I work with.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 10, 2010 01:07 PM (QMtmy)
Posted by: maddogg at December 10, 2010 01:07 PM (OlN4e)
Do you imagine that she managed to live in a normal teenage world where such a thing would be considered disgusting but awoke one day when she was eighteen and thought differently? At the very same point in her life this man, her father, awoke one day and realized he had all these pent-up feelings for her and when he dared to express them SURPRISE! she feels the exact same way?
Is that it?
WTF are you thinking?
Little girls, and certainly not teenagers, ever think of such a thing if a normal parent-child relationship exists.
SOMETHING made this relationship acceptable to her and SOMETHING made her keep quiet about it.
Might it have been the influence of a major guiding figure in her life?
I mean, seriously?! WTF are you people thinking?
This isn't kissing cousins. This isn't professor-student. This isn't the babysitter.
*spit!*
Fuck!
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 01:08 PM (hBsqk)
But by the litmus test put forward - horrible effects to the community and family - adultery is one of the nastiest actions ever. There's a reason it's near murder and theft in the ten commandments.
Adultery is fundamentally a betrayal of the oath of marriage and the trust necessary for a marriage to work. The fact that there is the betrayal of ones oaths, allows for society to replace criminal law with civil law as means of expressing it's displeasure. No such even occurs in incest. If a father and daughter both consent to a sexual relationship, society is still harmed if it allows for and accepts that relationship as valid.
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 01:08 PM (yY28H)
Posted by: Melvin Belli at December 10, 2010 01:09 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 10, 2010 01:09 PM (xJVlJ)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 01:10 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 10, 2010 01:10 PM (pAlYe)
I'll take asinine pedantry for $1000, Alex.
We speak of institutions as if they were people as a sort of short hand. And, beyond that, you're wrong. The government does have rights: they are as inherent to its own existence as our Natural Rights are to ours. The government has a right to protect itself. It has a right, and duty, to protect the society which formed it: which means that Social Cons have a better point than most give them. Further, all institutions do have "interests." Inasmuch as they're made up of people for a particular purpose or set of purposes, they have an "interest" in seeing those purposes furthered. I'll go further, institutions have "will" as well; we often make decisions contrary to our own immediate self interest to further the purposes of the institutions of which we are part- that indicates a will of the collective, which we refer to as an "institution."
Now, the People do, indeed, have the right to change or dissolve their government if it is no longer preserving their own natural rights, but as long as the government itself exists, it does have certain rights.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 01:10 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 10, 2010 01:11 PM (xJVlJ)
What about the Victoria's Secret Credit Card when she was 15?
Posted by: CoolCzech
Related (no pun intended)
I was doing Christmas shopping about two years ago and teenage stepdaughter was tagging along; me to shop for everyone, and her to finally shop for her siblings. One of my stops was Victoria's Secret (for Mrs. Hen). Usually when you go into a store with the progeny you give the usual, 'don't get lost', 'meet me back here in ten minutes', 'don't touch anything', whatever. I remember stating, "under no circumstances are you to shop for yourself, or give ANYONE the impression that you are the reason either of us are here."! She was briefly surprised, and then comprehension appeared and she said, "oh, OH! Yeah, got it."
Posted by: I am James' spleen at December 10, 2010 01:11 PM (R2fpr)
I wanna do my neighbor's 24 yr old daughter. Is that a crime? Sometimes I sicken myself.
If she's hot, that's perfectly normal. If your neighbor looks like Epstein, go for it. He won't beat you up, maybe some strongly worded email, and he's probably already lowered her self-esteem so low you're guaranteed to score if you're just nice to her.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 01:12 PM (1hM1d)
Guys?
Posted by: Niece-fucking Lefty at December 10, 2010 01:12 PM (G60Nl)
Posted by: Beefy Meatball at December 10, 2010 01:12 PM (YYaIP)
Maybe you don't ascribe to this: Goverments are instituted among men, deriving THEIR JUST POWERS from the governed.
However, the state is vested with powers, it acts and has an "interest" in social order.
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:06 PM (Z4T49)
Hmmm... please explain how what I wrote, contradicts that statement????
That MEN made Government, gave it POWERS, and thus control it... where as a RIGHT is inalienable by definition?
And tell ya what, when you can find me this Entity, called a State, which I can talk to (not a person who WORKS for the State, but the State itself)... then maybe I'll agree with you.
But until then whenever someone talks about a "States Interest", IMO it invariably boils down using the "state interest" to put forward their own belief structure.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2010 01:12 PM (AdK6a)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 10, 2010 01:12 PM (xJVlJ)
bunk
Posted by: David Epstein at December 10, 2010 01:14 PM (ckP8y)
+100
A relationship a daughter has with their father is different from any other relationship you will have in your life. It influences all your choices, the path you take, etc. This sleaze abused the privilege of being a father and became a predator. He started twisting her mind a long time ago.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 01:14 PM (iYbLN)
NOW we've hit a new low...
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2010 01:16 PM (yY28H)
What am I, who am I, what will I be
Where am I going and what will I see...
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 10, 2010 01:16 PM (QMtmy)
Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008
Palin's decision disappointed a lot of her supporters and even casual observers (my 9-year old daughter, rather out-of-the-blue, said "I didn't think she was a quitter, or a resigner"). She may well end up happier this way; she can make money on her book deal, give lots of speeches, and maybe even found a populist-PAC, supporting Republican candidates whom she approves of and be a player within party politics. But she will never hold elected office again, and voters can rest a bit easier with that knowledge, and the knowledge that they chose wisely in all respects last year.
Huffpo 2009
Well, he's got at least two daughters. Another shoe to drop?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2010 01:16 PM (yea0z)
Posted by: the chewbacca defense at December 10, 2010 01:17 PM (Pz5Cr)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 01:18 PM (yvnFu)
She's my daughter... She's my sister...
Posted by: Faye Dunaway at December 10, 2010 01:18 PM (/DOcw)
It kind of is since when the couple gets divorced, the adulterer is the one that usually ends up paying the restitution as punishment.
Um, not if the adulterer is the woman. If she spent any time at all rearing children or managing a household and it interrupted her career in even the tiniest amount, he'll get to find out just exactly who the weaker sex is.
And it ain't her. Hell, she could cheat on him, torment him, be mean to his family, kick the family dog, make demonstrably false accusations against him and the divorce judge will at most admonish her lawyer.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 01:19 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 10, 2010 01:19 PM (b6qrg)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 01:19 PM (yvnFu)
I think you are undermining the community by saying stuff like "Oh and fuck you."
That will be 10 lashes and a 20 dollar fine.
But first you will blow me. Posted by: James
I'm sorry your dick is just way too small to waste my time. I'd rather blow navycopjoe.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 01:20 PM (iYbLN)
Addendum to my cheating woman scenario: not only that, but she can toss his ass out on the street without warning and have a restraining order to make it so.
And make him pay for the locksmith who changed the locks. And that's when she's feeling generous.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 01:21 PM (1hM1d)
You gonna go tell on someone?
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 10, 2010 01:21 PM (PMGbu)
Ummm... no, because the Preamble of the Constitution isn't a clause. I believe you're referring to Art 1 Sec 8 (I think) that discusses the powers of the legislature. One of which is to raise funds for the General Welfare... (Typical Moron paraphrasing).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 01:21 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 05:10 PM (8y9MW)
Except that by definition a RIGHT is inalienable... and as our forefathers stated endowed by our Creator...
Are you saying that Governments have Rights, endowed by God? And that they are not creations of man? and thus controllable? That WE the people are not in control?
Because if so, then your statements are Logicaly incompatable. If a Right cannot be taken away... yet we can take it away... then it is not a Right.
But then, the whole idea of what a Right is has been demoted... as our "Rights" are constantly circumvented by the Government itself... and its in the ""Governments Interest" (to use your own terms) to dilute what a Right is.
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2010 01:21 PM (AdK6a)
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 01:22 PM (hBsqk)
EpsteinÂ’s expertise covers democracy studies as well as political economy, or how economic systems generate resources through production and trade, both domestically and internationally, and how political systems allocate and reallocate these goods. He has consulted for the World Bank and sits on the federal government's Political Instability Task Force.
What is the Political Instability Task Force?
The Political Instability Task Force (PITF) is a panel of scholars and methodologists that was originally formed in 1994 at the request of senior policymakers in the United States Government. The composition of the core group of scholars numbers from ten to fifteen and represents several of the country's leading research institutions; Its original, assigned task was to assess and explain the vulnerability of states around the world to political instability and state failure.
The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PITF website is hosted by the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University and is provided as a public service.
Glad to see he passed the background check. Nice work, CIA...
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2010 01:22 PM (yea0z)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 01:24 PM (yvnFu)
What if it were a mother and son?
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 01:25 PM (hBsqk)
re:petpeeves: when you want to go home after a lovely dinner and make sweet love, but she won't come out of the ball pit
"If you don't come out of there right now, you don't get to keep the toy from your meal!"
So we're all bound for the ninth plane of Hell for this thread?
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 01:26 PM (R2fpr)
Two Obvious Truths About the Torture Scandal
It also follows that in 50 years (or maybe sooner), the US will officially apologize for what it's done here, just like we apologized to those interned during the Second World War. And I hope Condi Rice realizes that future school children will watch tapes of her, like others from the Bush Administration, still make the claim that "we didn't torture" and be told that yes, it's unbelievable that she could say something like that, but that's just an object lesson in what bad people do.
Huffpo 2009
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2010 01:27 PM (yea0z)
What if it were a mother and son?
Just as wrong and depraved.
Posted by: mpfs at December 10, 2010 01:27 PM (iYbLN)
So we're all bound for the ninth plane of Hell for this thread?
The potential for this gag is boundless.
Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2010 01:27 PM (Du9+F)
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 05:22 PM (hBsqk)
I don't find anything acceptable about it. It's gross. My only point has been that the same arguments over "gay marriage" can readily be adapted to argue in favor of incestuous relationships, and that's a damn shame.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 10, 2010 01:27 PM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, with three daughters of his own at December 10, 2010 01:30 PM (+ZuA5)
Oooh pedantry turned up to 11.
Tell me, can your Right to Life be taken away?
I said: as long as the government exists, it does have certain rights. If it gets dissolved and a new government is formed, that government might have different rights (though I'd point out that the two I mentioned would be universal: protecting itself and protecting the society which gave it birth).
Remember, the balancing force to a "Right" is the resultant "Duty." If government has duties, it must also have rights.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 01:31 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 01:31 PM (yvnFu)
I don't find anything acceptable about it. It's gross. My only point has been that the same arguments over "gay marriage" can readily be adapted to argue in favor of incestuous relationships, and that's a damn shame.
Posted by: CoolCzech
Agreed. I thought that most of us were piling on (in a nonsexual way) and abusing this freak of nature. I concur that as we say this, swapping out homosexual couple for father/ daughter couple lands you arguing in favor of it, not against it.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 10, 2010 01:31 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: James
Gee boss, you've never stopped to think before. Why start now?
Posted by: I am James' spleen at December 10, 2010 01:33 PM (R2fpr)
However, the state is vested with powers, it acts and has an "interest" in social order.
So, you're ok when that same government clamps down on the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendments because it helps protect the social order?
TSA pr0n scans or groping: for the social order?
That was the point James was making: lots of things can be said to protect or promote the social order. Not all of them are a priori true. Such claims should be evaluated and weighed. Incest has already been placed on the scales and has been found to be wanting.
On the other hand, take a look at the first rock & roll generation: the hippy doucebags and bleeths called Baby Boomers. Maybe the old foggies where right, rock & roll does damage the social good!
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 10, 2010 01:34 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: James' "brain" at December 10, 2010 01:37 PM (+ZuA5)
Posted by: Benny Hill at December 10, 2010 01:38 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: The Banjo Playin' Kid from "Deliverance" at December 10, 2010 01:40 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: James at December 10, 2010 01:43 PM (yvnFu)
Me too. It's just that the way some folks were headed, I was pretty sure that there would be an angle, somewhere, upon which someone would seize and let their inner demons come forth.
Posted by: jmflynny at December 10, 2010 01:44 PM (hBsqk)
Posted by: Buffalobob at December 10, 2010 01:47 PM (GwH6h)
You have to read the lefty commenters at the NYDN defending the guy. Really. I especially like the part about charging his daughter because she too is an adult. What happened to the power relationship stuff? Oh yeah, he's on your side.
Posted by: Beagle at December 10, 2010 01:48 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 10, 2010 01:50 PM (3ESDJ)
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 10, 2010 01:50 PM (PMGbu)
In my experience, Divorce Court rarely provides any sort of justice.
A friend of mine came home to discover his wife was doing a guy at the gym. She said she was 'living a lie' and filed for divorce. Since they were in MA she got the kids (she'd get the kids in virtually any situation, barring a heroin needle sticking out of her arm). She also gets child support now, and the advantage of a younger f*ck buddy. He gets to see his kids every other weekend, and she got half of the assets in the divorce.
So how exactly did adultery get dealt with properly in this situation?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2010 01:56 PM (oNQkO)
Posted by: Darth Randall at December 10, 2010 02:21 PM (O/onO)
Think that popularity's gonna suffer a tiny bit?
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 10, 2010 02:42 PM (nD3Pg)
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent
So is sex automatically coupled to procreation? If so, why is that so for heterosexuals and not for same-sex couples?
We live in an age of freely available contraception and abortion on demand. If the sex was consensual (and I guess it was or else he'd have been charged with rape), then why assume they didn't use protection or that they weren't committed to abort any accidentally conceived fetus?
Also, I'm not sure that it's automatically the case that a child conceived in this way would be ill. Producing a child from such closely related individuals certainly increases the chances that any genetic defects that are carried by both parents would be expressed, but it doesn't guarantee it.
Posted by: Y-not at December 10, 2010 02:47 PM (IDL9N)
Posted by: Kelly at December 10, 2010 03:20 PM (FLFli)
Y-not,
I'd ask how your family visits are going to go over during Christmas, but I think we all have a good idea how.
Reverse cowgirl style, huh?
Posted by: s'moron at December 10, 2010 03:28 PM (UaxA0)
His defense? "I don't look like an incest-freak pedo or anything."
****************
That's a defense? Since when? And who's been telling this loser he doesn't look like a pervert? The face in the mirror?
(And does the fact that he makes a reference to pedophelia mean that he's acknowledging that this incest has been going on since the victim was a child?)
Posted by: AZC at December 10, 2010 03:30 PM (P/M3M)
Posted by: yambles at December 10, 2010 03:35 PM (rxaXW)
Even we make fun of those daughter humpers!
Posted by: Columbia Philosophy Department
Oh, please, you wussies.
Posted by: Math department at Directional State University, Podunk
Campus
They say a Math Department is the cheapest one to operate at a university--all you need is some paper and a wastebasket. But Philosophy is cheaper--you don't need the wastebasket.
Posted by: Nemo from Erewhon at December 10, 2010 03:40 PM (a3Lzx)
lol.
I hope everyone realizes that, like CoolCzech, I am arguing this position (that it's no big deal) because I really think things like this "relationship" is the logical outflow of the social engineering the gay activists are trying to accomplish.
Posted by: Y-not at December 10, 2010 03:40 PM (IDL9N)
318 So contraception removes the guilt and the stain? Nice to know.
Posted by: Kelly at December 10, 2010 07:17 PM
---
See #325.
Posted by: Y-not at December 10, 2010 03:41 PM (IDL9N)
Protect the young. Protect kids against predators. But this, as gross as it is, is not our concern. Two consenting adults. Period.
Posted by: Sven at December 10, 2010 03:42 PM (IBZ8t)
It wasn't rape rape, the girls were not Jewish. It doesn't count.
Really, that what we believe.
Look it up, Gentiles don't count.
Posted by: Rabbi Bullstein at December 10, 2010 04:03 PM (JpFM9)
Posted by: steevy at December 10, 2010 04:25 PM (0KOzy)
Posted by: Ace's liver at December 10, 2010 04:41 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:02 PM (Z4T49)
But. The woman is now 24, and their expanded "father daughter" relationship began in 2006. Just when she turned 18? Once she blew out those 18 candles, in daddy's eyes, she suddenly had a great ass? Rather coincidental if you ask me. I think there's going to be more of this story coming out.
Posted by: DngrMse at December 10, 2010 05:03 PM (LkxVK)
Question: Assuming the daughter was an unimpaired, consulting adult at all times pertinent, how come she is not being charged also?
Posted by: J. Bodeen at December 10, 2010 05:04 PM (u+8qs)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:09 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:12 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:14 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:16 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Tommy V at December 10, 2010 05:16 PM (qU57d)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:19 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:20 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 05:21 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Spirograph at December 10, 2010 05:33 PM (rVtP6)
I mean seriously; I could see a few people being dumb enough to agree; but I figured they'd have some decency there. Guess I'm still too optimistic about other people.
Posted by: Gekkobear at December 10, 2010 06:03 PM (8kE6n)
Ok, fine... we'll call it consenting adults, private business and no crime.
My sheep didn't seem upset when I had sex with her, that ok too? I mean is there really a clear victim in bestiality?
Oh, and necrophilia; I'm the only person in the room, why is that illegal?
Can we just agree that some shit is wrong without saying "consenting adults, do whatever you want'?
Since we're going with legal defenses; if you're found to have taken your 12 year old daughter to Angola; hey sex with a 12 year old "woman" is legal there.. so no problem if it's consenting; right?
I vote not to prosecute if his wife kills him... she really wants me to be on that jury.
Posted by: Gekkobear at December 10, 2010 06:15 PM (8kE6n)
Playing devil's advocate here, but would your sheep be any less victimized by being slaughtered, and butchered? Does is give it's consent to that? Are you seriously comparing the rape of a child to what two consenting adults choose to do in private?
Posted by: DngrMse at December 10, 2010 06:32 PM (LkxVK)
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at December 10, 2010 06:47 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: SarahW at December 10, 2010 09:16 PM (Z4T49)
Not always. Tell me, what is the state's interest in this if one or both of them is fixed and there's no chance we'll be stuck with the bill for supporting three-eyed children?
Posted by: Ace's liver at December 10, 2010 06:50 PM (QgI7g)
He doesn't just talk the progressive talk, he walks the progressive walk. I'll bet he even sleeps on the wet spot.
Posted by: qzy at December 10, 2010 06:56 PM (DUxjy)
And if your problem is the age of consent in Angola being 12, lets go with 16 and Alaska, Hawaii, D.C., etc... that's old enough to consent in those states. If a father had sex in one of those areas with his 16 year old daughter... ok if she consented... or he needs to go to jail? I mean it wouldn't be rape if I had sex with her, it'd technically be perfectly legal (creepy as hell, but I wouldn't face jail time)... so "rape of a child" doesn't really apply does it?
Oh, and here's me hoping I don't have the woman I'm dating checking my search history... "age of consent by country" and "age of consent in US states" in my search browser is going to be damnably hard to explain.
May have to dump my browser before we go out tomorrow... just to be on the safe side. I'm guessing I'm not clever enough to talk my way out of that one.
Posted by: Gekkobear at December 10, 2010 07:33 PM (8kE6n)
Posted by: qzy at December 10, 2010 07:46 PM (DUxjy)
That's their story, and they are sticking to it.
Posted by: Kristopher at December 10, 2010 11:46 PM (cxBLR)
I have got to ask.
Are New York women so fuckin' fugly after age 25 or so that immediately after marrying a full grown man, that man just naturally turns towards pedophelia?
At least as a futures option?
Posted by: Crispy Deety at December 11, 2010 02:19 AM (Jb3+B)
Posted by: Daughter's name? at December 11, 2010 04:20 AM (nfbnI)
My source suggests a "Sara Pepper Epstein" or maybe "Rebecca A." or "Amy F. Epstein" as his daughter's name:
http://radaris.com/p/David/Epstein/NY/
Posted by: Daughter's name? at December 11, 2010 04:22 AM (nfbnI)
Ah, Columbia. The university that employed (still employs?) Nicholas DeGenova, the academic who hoped for a "milliion Mogadishus." The university whose faculty responded to DeGenova's despicable statement with an outcry of...um, <i>defense for Nicholas DeGenova!</i>
What a place. It almost makes you think that Ivy League ROTC is a bad idea. Apparently Ivy League universities turn people into crap. Well, we don't want crap people leading our men and women in combat, do we?
Posted by: smagar at December 11, 2010 04:24 AM (fc35B)
Posted by: Daughter's name? at December 11, 2010 04:25 AM (nfbnI)
Legally (because of us '*.phobes'), it is a different matter at the present time. They just need the right judge (Imam Khomeini, for example).
Posted by: Thorvald at December 11, 2010 06:54 AM (QSnK2)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 11, 2010 07:54 AM (61b7k)
Just for reference:
NY Code - Section 255.25: Incest in the third degree
A person is guilty of incest in the third degree when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
Incest in the third degree is a class E felony.
So yes, whoever he was banging should wind up charged too.
Also, Incest is categorized among "Offenses Affecting the Marital Relationship", along with adultery, bigamy, and procedural things.
Posted by: Sam at December 11, 2010 10:03 AM (HXLyb)
David Epstein
Faculty Fellow, Political Science, Columbia University
David Epstein has authored and co-authored numerous books and articles, including Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers (Cambridge University Press, 1999); The 45% Solution: Racial Redistricting and the Evolution of American Politics (Manuscript: Columbia University); “A Theory of Strategic Oversight: Congress, Lobbyists, and the Bureaucracy,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization (1995); and “The Partisan Paradox and the Tariff, 1877-1934,” International Organization (1996).
Posted by: reliapundit at December 11, 2010 10:31 AM (NWv1d)
LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, anyone? This is now a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
And, by the way, faggots make me want to puke. Homosexuals are sick and depraved, immoral and sinful -- and all of you KNOW it.
Posted by: Bilbo at December 11, 2010 06:17 PM (Jrwhg)
Posted by: SarahW at December 11, 2010 08:44 PM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Wilson at December 12, 2010 10:42 AM (jlVt1)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2176 seconds, 486 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Charles Johnson, Welfare Queen at December 10, 2010 12:07 PM (MFOq8)