Dr. Hager's Family Values

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

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

CsG

So it's your opinion that forcing unwanted sex on someone is "ok"???

No. Never even came close to suggesting such.

CsG

If you can jump to conclusions, then so can I.

Nothing was concluded with my question. I simply asked his opinion. ("is it" vs "it is")

CsG

Of course your right. I should have said that if your going to go OT then so can I. Yours was the second post and nothing in the OP had anything to do with any moralization on the act of sodomy.

From the article:

According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent.Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Now go ahead and defend this sicko to your hearts content.

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

Also, I have not even come close to defending him and have expressed my opinion on this whole issue. But it's no surprise you want to skip right over that and claim I am/or will defend this guy.

CsG

Then kindly expalin to me what it is we are really arguing about.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
3 entries found for defend.
de·fend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v. tr.
[*]To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
Sports.
[*]To attempt to prevent the opposition from scoring while playing in or near (a goal or area of a field, for example).
[*]To be responsible for guarding (an opposing player).
[*]To compete against a challenger in an attempt to retain (a championship).
[*]To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.
Law.
[*]To represent (a defendant) in a civil or criminal action.
[*]To attempt to disprove or invalidate (an action or claim).

Stating the FACTS is not "defending" him. Pointing out that the allegations of "forced" are just allegations does not equal "defending. Whether or not it was "forced" does not change the disgusting nature of this whole issue.

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
3 entries found for defend.
de·fend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v. tr.
[*]To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
Sports.
[*]To attempt to prevent the opposition from scoring while playing in or near (a goal or area of a field, for example).
[*]To be responsible for guarding (an opposing player).
[*]To compete against a challenger in an attempt to retain (a championship).
[*]To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.
Law.
[*]To represent (a defendant) in a civil or criminal action.
[*]To attempt to disprove or invalidate (an action or claim).

Stating the FACTS is not "defending" him. Pointing out that the allegations of "forced" are just allegations does not equal "defending. Whether or not it was "forced" does not change the disgusting nature of this whole issue.

CsG

Your so full of BS. The article was posted May 11th and I haven't heard a denial from Hager or anyone else, so why argue about it?? It sure looks to me like you are trying to defend the guy.

 

[Riprorin]

As if you would accept his denial.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As if you would accept his denial.

I'd be willing to bet I would give it more weight then you give to her allegations. Bring on a news article and let's see what Hagar has to say about it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 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.

As with the two prevailing positions on Iraq, I'm sure the decision will fall mainly along party lines.

The story does highlight the hypocrisy of people who try to preach to others when in point of fact they swim in the same water as all the rest of us. That's why their self-righteousness always ends in hypicrosy.

If I was a fvcking dumbass Liberal, I would figure out a way to blame this mans alleged actions on his Mother or father or society. Or would support a conclusion that he was a victim and should get a pass.

If I was a smart ass Liberal, I would figure out a way to circumvent the constitution and have the judiciary pass judgment on this man in a manner that was, politically and publicly, popular at the time.

If I was an Elected Liberal, I would just Blame it on Bush and laugh knowing that my constituency would actually believe it was true.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 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.

As with the two prevailing positions on Iraq, I'm sure the decision will fall mainly along party lines.

The story does highlight the hypocrisy of people who try to preach to others when in point of fact they swim in the same water as all the rest of us. That's why their self-righteousness always ends in hypicrosy.

If I was a fvcking dumbass Liberal, I would figure out a way to blame this mans alleged actions on his Mother or father or society. Or would support a conclusion that he was a victim and should get a pass.

If I was a smart ass Liberal, I would figure out a way to circumvent the constitution and have the judiciary pass judgment on this man in a manner that was, politically and publicly, popular at the time.

If I was an Elected Liberal, I would just Blame it on Bush and laugh knowing that my constituency would actually believe it was true.

Instead your a dumbass neocon who sticks his head in the sand about the matter while trying to make this out as some kind of negative reflection of the opposition.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 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.

As with the two prevailing positions on Iraq, I'm sure the decision will fall mainly along party lines.

The story does highlight the hypocrisy of people who try to preach to others when in point of fact they swim in the same water as all the rest of us. That's why their self-righteousness always ends in hypicrosy.

If I was a fvcking dumbass Liberal, I would figure out a way to blame this mans alleged actions on his Mother or father or society. Or would support a conclusion that he was a victim and should get a pass.

If I was a smart ass Liberal, I would figure out a way to circumvent the constitution and have the judiciary pass judgment on this man in a manner that was, politically and publicly, popular at the time.

If I was an Elected Liberal, I would just Blame it on Bush and laugh knowing that my constituency would actually believe it was true.

Instead your a dumbass neocon who sticks his head in the sand about the matter while trying to make this out as some kind of negative reflection of the opposition.

:thumbsup:

It seems we "fvcking dumbass" liberals are the only people placing blame where it belongs. With this anal rapist. Not his mother or father or society or, as the "conservatives" here insist on doing for some reason, the woman he raped anally over a period of years.

Liberals don't "circumvent the Constitution". Please see the Patriot Act.

No liberal here has blamed this on Bush. What I believe we are trying to get through your skull is the fact that this Hager clown is just another in a long and ever increasing list of hypocrites that make up the Bush administration.

And their constituency actually believes them.

 

[Infohawk]

Am I the only one that finds it amazing how quickly csg was ready to support based on "alleged" WMDs?

From what I've heard from this guy, he isn't really denying it but saying it isn't the whole truth. Don't know what else he could say that would make anal rape okay.