Dr. Hager's Family Values

[Ozoned]

Condor, it seems you have somehow tripped over an aggravated and exposed, raw nerve. Heh heh..

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Condor

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

Uh... no shit. Why would we go on about every little (alleged) rapist out there? The point here is that this (alleged) rapist is a religious fundamentalist who's denunciation of other's sexual preferences and habits is made all the more inappropriate in light of his own (alleged) glaring hypocrisy. You say that as though you've caught onto some brilliant point, when not only is it obvious, but entirely justified.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

"I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off

Huh? Can someone explain how this is physically possible.

Sodomy can be accomplished by both 'front' and 'rear' entry...

 

[Gaard]

Oh, he knows. Yeah, he knows.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Condor, it seems you have somehow tripped over an aggravated and exposed, raw nerve. Heh heh..

:music: Cryptozealot, quesque c'est... :music:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Condor, it seems you have somehow tripped over an aggravated and exposed, raw nerve. Heh heh..

Real easy to do with the lib crowd. Just adds more zest to life.

 

[Gaard]

Another example of your 'I'M a troll-deal with it' attitude?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Another example of your 'I'M a troll-deal with it' attitude?

Yes, self-admitted trolling by Condor. Apparently it gets him off since he says it adds more to life. "

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gaard
Another example of your 'I'M a troll-deal with it' attitude?

Yes, self-admitted trolling by Condor. Apparently it gets him off since he says it adds more to life. "

I'm curious. Without re-reading the whole thread, have any of the Bushies actually addressed Hager's apparent hypocrisy and repugnant behavior, or has it been exclusively showcasing their "values" with duhversions and attacks on the victim?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gaard
Another example of your 'I'M a troll-deal with it' attitude?

Yes, self-admitted trolling by Condor. Apparently it gets him off since he says it adds more to life. "

I'm curious. Without re-reading the whole thread, have any of the Bushies actually addressed Hager's apparent hypocrisy and repugnant behavior, or has it been exclusively showcasing their "values" with duhversions and attacks on the victim?

I'll just say you've got a very opitmisitc view of this forum.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gaard
Another example of your 'I'M a troll-deal with it' attitude?

Yes, self-admitted trolling by Condor. Apparently it gets him off since he says it adds more to life. "

I'm curious. Without re-reading the whole thread, have any of the Bushies actually addressed Hager's apparent hypocrisy and repugnant behavior, or has it been exclusively showcasing their "values" with duhversions and attacks on the victim?

YABA: "Forget about the obvious hypocrisy, how the heck can you push someone off your back when they are poking you in the butt!?! That's what I want to know!"

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, the "forced" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So, are we to assume that you use this principle of disregarding "only alleged" behaviors when it comes to left-wing personalities?

For example, when Paula Jones made statements about Bill Clinton, is it fair to assume that you made no negative comments about Clinton? And that when people did make Jones-related anti-Clinton statements, your response was, "Those are only allegations"?

Somehow, I very much doubt it. I think we'll find your principles are a mere convenience, and that if we search these ATPN threads, we'll find a slightly different "principle" at work when is comes to your response to alleged left-wing misbehavior.

Care to comment?

 

[Riprorin]

The blue dress.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, the "forced" part is only alleged, but ofcourse people will run with that and believe it no matter what.

So, are we to assume that you use this principle of disregarding "only alleged" behaviors when it comes to left-wing personalities?

For example, when Paula Jones made statements about Bill Clinton, is it fair to assume that you made no negative comments about Clinton? And that when people did make Jones-related anti-Clinton statements, your response was, "Those are only allegations"?

Somehow, I very much doubt it. I think we'll find your principles are a mere convenience, and that if we search these ATPN threads, we'll find a slightly different "principle" at work when is comes to your response to alleged left-wing misbehavior.

Care to comment?

You don't have to search very far. Take the CBS vs. Ken Starr thread as a current example.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The blue dress.

I wasn't aware that Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky shared wardrobes. And any concrete evidence about Lewinsky, and any relationship it had to the Paula Jones case, came years after the initial Jones allegations.

The question is: Does CAD consistently assume the same principled stance about personalities on the other side of the aisle when it comes to "mere allegations"? Did he disregard allegations about Michael Schaivo's alleged abuse of Terri? Did he disregard the swiftboat veterans' allegations about John Kerry?

What I suspect is, just like Hager, CAD is just another right-wing hypocrite.

 

[Riprorin]

In the Jones' case, we have the "distinguishing mark".

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In the Jones' case, we have the "distinguishing mark".

You're still missing the point. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Clinton's Peyronie's disease: When did concrete evidence first come to light relative to Jones's initial allegations - a year later? Two?

According to the "CAD principle of allegations", we shouldn't have given any thought to Jones's allegations UNTIL concrete evidence was available. So if CAD and his cronies were speculating on Clinton's alleged depravity PRIOR to any real evidence coming to light, then he's was being a hypocrite since he was violating his professed principle.

 

[Riprorin]

As opposed to the Hager case where there is NO concrete evidence several years after the alleged behavior occurred.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: shira
According to the "CAD principle of allegations", we shouldn't have given any thought to Jones's allegations UNTIL concrete evidence was available.

Which is funny, because if you read a thread CAD made recently regarding CBS and Ken Starr, you would find that he doesn't follow that principle at all if it doesn't suit him...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The blue dress.

Paula wore a blue dress?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The blue dress.

Paula wore a blue dress?

No, Rip did.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As opposed to the Hager case where there is NO concrete evidence several years after the alleged behavior occurred.

A slight difference is that no one is investigating this issue. Most divorce cases don't involve independent counsels. All we'll ever have on Hager is allegations.

By the way, I think it's entirely appropriate that "mere allegations" be bandied about. It's CAD who's such a stickler for principle.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: shira
According to the "CAD principle of allegations", we shouldn't have given any thought to Jones's allegations UNTIL concrete evidence was available.

Which is funny, because if you read a thread CAD made recently regarding CBS and Ken Starr, you would find that he doesn't follow that principle at all if it doesn't suit him...

Why am I not shocked?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

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

CsG

Nonconsensual sodomy is rape, which is disgusting and should be punished.

Consensual sodomy is none of my business.

Non-consensual anything is a crime. End of story....who cares what's going where if the two or more partners don't.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alkemyst


Non-consensual anything is a crime.

A presumption of Non-consensual anything is not.

And there you have it. The two prevailing positions in this thread. Now,,, how to decide the one to attach to the Dr. Hager.