Dr. Hager's Family Values

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You obviously don't know what "allegation" means.

Oh, I do. And it's obvious to tell when an allegation is true. This is one of those cases.

Another allegation that is likely true is you are a closeted homosexual. It's ok, Rip. Seriously. Just admit it. We won't hate you. We'll welcome you with open arms and you can finally shed your self-loathing.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Head butting? Kicks and elbows? Okay.

Those were merely examples to illustrate the ability to react in a backward motion.

I never said that there was only one possible position.

You extended your logic to imply such.

According to her statement, she was asleep and woke up when she was entered anally, at which point she sometimes tried to push him off.

That suggests to me he's either on top of her as she's face down or behind her while she's on her side.

Or kneeling beside her while she is on her side, or indeed, laying face up with her legs
apart suffieciently to allow for such placement of sexual apparatus.

In either case, I don't see how she could be pushing him off - unless she has arms growing out of her back.

Analytic flaw #3: assuming that the only means of "pushing" requires placing ones
hands against the object or person to be "pushed". One can "push" with the rest of
the body while placing hands in front to provide necessary leverage for said action,
as one possible alternative. One can also "push" with the feet, by drawing that
appendage up to the level of the adjacent knee (or higher) and moving it backwards
in a stepping/kicking motion.

Also (as the ergonomic tangent of the day), if you would repeat the following actions:

1. Place both hands, palm downward, at an even level above your keyboard.

2. Drawn in both arms as best you can to point the elbows behind your back,
to the point that your hands are even with (or slightly ahead of) your waist.

(you may need to move your chair back away from your desk for this next step)

3. Keeping you elbows in the same postion, press downward with both palms.
You should observe your forearms pivoting from the point of the elbow, with
your hands stopping (depending on the length of your arms) either at the base of
your chair, or against the back of the chair. As you continue to apply pressure,
you should observe that you are pushing against the chair.

In fact, you might also observe that the placement of hands in such a manner could
be particularly effective in providing opposition to an inadvertent buggering upon
oneself.

I don't buy the story.

Turn down your RDF*, it appears to be stuck at 11.




* Reality Distortion Field

 

[CQuinn]

duplicate posting, my apologies.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
Exactly, Red. Rip sees nothing wrong with the MAN raping his wife up the ass. Women are inferior objects and only serve as temptations. But, then again, Rip prefers the man-sex but just won't admit it.

Of course there's something wrong with it, if it's true.

The woman's statements don't stand up scrutiny so I seriously question her allegations.

The woman's statements stand up quite adequately for those of us who can apply an
understanding of the situation (and possible positions) involved. It is you who seems
unable to engage in scrutiny.

You seem to have formed the opinion that there is only one possible position from
which this "alleged" non-consensual sodomy could have taken place. And that
it would not be possible for her to resist from that position.

The first flaw I see in that analysis, is that if you have ever been in bed with
a significant other, you would have noticed occasions where one is subject to
kicks, elbows and even head butting... while the other person is facing away
from you. As others have also pointed out, applying those actions as
part of an effort to resist possible assualt is made even easier by the simple
action of turning the upper or lower body in either direction as needed to
remove the other person from close proximity to the body.

The second flaw is, if I read your description accurately, your implication
that Dr. Hager was actively seeking to subdue or bind his wife in such a
fashion as to make it more difficult to refuse his advances. Otherwise
it is physically impossible for an otherwise heathly adult female to
not be able to resist in some fashion. The simple act of trying to cross
ones legs and "clenching up" (for example) would be a sufficient signal of
unwillingness for most spouses to recognize and respect.

IANAL, but as I understand it a charge of "sexual and emotional abuse" would
be enough to allow the granting of a divorce in a court of law. Unless those records
were sealed it should be possible to check the proceedings leading to the divorce decree
to determine if Ms. Davis made those same charges at the time.

Otherwise she is potentially opening herself up to a charge of slander if her statements
to the reporter do not reflect the claims she made during the filing for divorce.

Head butting? Kicks and elbows? Okay.

I never said that there was only one possible position.

According to her statement, she was asleep and woke up when she was entered anally, at which point she sometimes tried to push him off.

That suggests to me he's either on top of her as she's face down or behind her while she's on her side.

In either case, I don't see how she could be pushing him off - unless she has arms growing out of her back.

I don't buy the story.

You are a very strange and weird man.

 

[Gaard]

This thread is pretty funny. If I say 'asshole', would you think I was referring to the story (sodomy) or Rip?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
This thread is pretty funny. If I say 'asshole', would you think I was referring to the story (sodomy) or Rip?

That's the problem with you guys. You're always trying to divide everything into an either/or choice. I believe there's plenty of room here for both.

 

[Riprorin]

Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent.

And we're supposed to believe that she endured being raped for 7 years?

Not once during the uproar over Hager's FDA appointment did any reporter solicit the opinion of the woman now known as Linda Davis--she remarried in November 2002

Didn't take her long to remarry.

Do most women who suffer the kind of abuse she alleges rush into another relationship?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do most women who suffer the kind of abuse she alleges rush into another relationship?

I think that is rather common. I've read that it is predictable for a rape victim to seek sexual contact soon after the abuse in order to "regain control" of their bodies.

Not to mention the emotional support one may feel is necessary after having been in a particularly bad relationship.

 

[Riprorin]

Or maybe she was in an aduterous relationship and needed an excuse to get out of her marriage while making herself look like the victim.

Who knows.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
Exactly, Red. Rip sees nothing wrong with the MAN raping his wife up the ass. Women are inferior objects and only serve as temptations. But, then again, Rip prefers the man-sex but just won't admit it.

Of course there's something wrong with it, if it's true.

The woman's statements don't stand up scrutiny so I seriously question her allegations.

The woman's statements stand up quite adequately for those of us who can apply an
understanding of the situation (and possible positions) involved. It is you who seems
unable to engage in scrutiny.

You seem to have formed the opinion that there is only one possible position from
which this "alleged" non-consensual sodomy could have taken place. And that
it would not be possible for her to resist from that position.

The first flaw I see in that analysis, is that if you have ever been in bed with
a significant other, you would have noticed occasions where one is subject to
kicks, elbows and even head butting... while the other person is facing away
from you. As others have also pointed out, applying those actions as
part of an effort to resist possible assualt is made even easier by the simple
action of turning the upper or lower body in either direction as needed to
remove the other person from close proximity to the body.

The second flaw is, if I read your description accurately, your implication
that Dr. Hager was actively seeking to subdue or bind his wife in such a
fashion as to make it more difficult to refuse his advances. Otherwise
it is physically impossible for an otherwise heathly adult female to
not be able to resist in some fashion. The simple act of trying to cross
ones legs and "clenching up" (for example) would be a sufficient signal of
unwillingness for most spouses to recognize and respect.

IANAL, but as I understand it a charge of "sexual and emotional abuse" would
be enough to allow the granting of a divorce in a court of law. Unless those records
were sealed it should be possible to check the proceedings leading to the divorce decree
to determine if Ms. Davis made those same charges at the time.

Otherwise she is potentially opening herself up to a charge of slander if her statements
to the reporter do not reflect the claims she made during the filing for divorce.

Head butting? Kicks and elbows? Okay.

I never said that there was only one possible position.

According to her statement, she was asleep and woke up when she was entered anally, at which point she sometimes tried to push him off.

That suggests to me he's either on top of her as she's face down or behind her while she's on her side.

In either case, I don't see how she could be pushing him off - unless she has arms growing out of her back.

I don't buy the story.

You are a very strange and weird man.

The first flaw I see in that analysis, is that if you have ever been in bed with
a significant other, you would have noticed occasions where one is subject to
kicks, elbows and even head butting...

Yeah, I found CQuinn's comments strange and weird too.

 

[Riprorin]

If this happened from 1995 - 2002, why is it suddenly coming out now?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Or maybe she was in an aduterous relationship and needed an excuse to get out of her marriage while making herself look like the victim.

Who knows.

Is that why you hate women so much? Is that what your wife did or is doing to you?


Get over yourself, Rip.

 

[Gaard]

After reading all the posts by Rip in this thread and others in the last ~15 minutes, I'd say he's just looking to argue with someone. He must be bored at home.

I'd suggest to Rip that instead of picking a fight on ATP&N he try out some 'positions'.

 

[Riprorin]

"I would not be at all surprised to see Dr. Hager elevated to a higher position or to another very influential position when it comes to women's care,"

It's amazing how the leftists go into attack mode when a conservative is in line for a high profile position.

This reminds me of slanderous charges against Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

"I would not be at all surprised to see Dr. Hager elevated to a higher position or to another very influential position when it comes to women's care,"

It's amazing how the leftists go into attack mode when a conservative is line for a high profile position.

This reminds me of slanderous charges against the Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

And Thomas' abyssmal performance on the Supreme Court should tell you why.

 

[Riprorin]

You mean why the leftists attempted a high-tech lynching?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

Care to show us all the threads where the "liberals" championed anal rape? Too tough for you? How about even one thread where the "liberals" championed any rape?

Thought not. Take your and go play.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

Care to show us all the threads where the "liberals" championed anal rape? Too tough for you? How about even one thread where the "liberals" championed any rape?

Thought not. Take your and go play.

Read the post. The rape part is "she said, he said". No factuals quoted.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You mean why the leftists attempted a high-tech lynching?

You'd have to ask your embarassment of a Supreme Court Justice. That was his characterization of a Senate hearing. Another reason the idiot should never even have been considered.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

Care to show us all the threads where the "liberals" championed anal rape? Too tough for you? How about even one thread where the "liberals" championed any rape?

Thought not. Take your and go play.

I only saw the words sodomy as well. Where did you get the anal part? Context or active imagination.

Sodomy is most commonly legally defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another. The word has its origins in Christianity. It is sometimes used to mean sexual deviation, though in legal contexts it is defined as above. Throughout history, "sodomites," mostly male homosexuals and bestialists, have been punished by a largely theocratically controlled government, in hopes of stamping out "ungodly practices" that might bring divine retribution against Christian society. In medieval Europe, intercourse between a male field worker and a noble woman was legally considered "sodomy," as it was thought to cause a poor harvest. The history of the concept of sodomy is tied to the Church in most every case.

Currently, there is no federal sodomy law, though some federal land falls under maritime jurisdiction, which may have sanctions in some cases. 25 states do not have sodomy laws. 5 states have laws pertaining to homosexual sodomy only, and the remaining 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, have laws covering all sodomy, even between heterosexuals.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

Care to show us all the threads where the "liberals" championed anal rape? Too tough for you? How about even one thread where the "liberals" championed any rape?

Thought not. Take your and go play.

Read the post. The rape part is "she said, he said". No factuals quoted.

No, sorry. Read the thread. Your "sexual perversion" is aimed at anal rape in general. It is not limited to the anal rape committed by Hager (or not). Your compulsive dig at "liberals" is as devoid of value as most of your posts.

(Unless, perhaps, you champion anal rape. If so, go look up Rip. I somehow suspect if he were on the receiving end, he would suddenly discover enlightenment as to how one could try to push an attacker regardless of position.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Condor
I only saw the words sodomy as well. Where did you get the anal part? Context or active imagination. ...

Read it again. (And this moron accuses me of not reading. :roll: )

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So is it your opinion that sodomy is ok or is it a "sexual perversion"?

CsG

It's his opinion that the preacher is friendly with the Bush admin, therefore it is sexual perversion. if it was in a topic opened by liberal members of the forum, he would champion it.

Care to show us all the threads where the "liberals" championed anal rape? Too tough for you? How about even one thread where the "liberals" championed any rape?

Thought not. Take your and go play.

Read the post. The rape part is "she said, he said". No factuals quoted.

No, sorry. Read the thread. Your "sexual perversion" is aimed at anal rape in general. It is not limited to the anal rape committed by Hager (or not). Your compulsive dig at "liberals" is as devoid of value as most of your posts.

(Unless, perhaps, you champion anal rape. If so, go look up Rip. I somehow suspect if he were on the receiving end, he would suddenly discover enlightenment as to how one could try to push an attacker regardless of position.)

Yeah, this really sounds like rape.

"Sex was always a source of conflict in the marriage. Though it wasn't emotionally satisfying for her, Davis says she soon learned that sex could "buy" peace with Hager after a long day of arguing, or insure his forgiveness after she spent too much money. "Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said. Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'" "

If he was a liberal and not a part of the administration, this thread wouldn't exist:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Condor
Yeah, this really sounds like rape.

"Sex was always a source of conflict in the marriage. Though it wasn't emotionally satisfying for her, Davis says she soon learned that sex could "buy" peace with Hager after a long day of arguing, or insure his forgiveness after she spent too much money. "Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said. Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'" "...

Once again demostrating that you either did not read the whole article, or you are a compulsive, dishonest fluffer for the Bush administration. Buh bye.