Dr. Hager's Family Values

[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.

 

[Moonbeam]

The facts of the story clearly indicate that the Devil turned this horrible woman against a Christian White Knight in order to slander the Faith.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The facts of the story clearly indicate that the Devil turned this horrible woman against a Christian White Knight in order to slander the Faith.

Burn the witch at the stake.

 

[judasmachine]

Say what you will, however, the guy is still a sexist. (at least)

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Say what you will, however, the guy is still a sexist. (at least)

While the fire is raging, burn him at the stake too.

Just make sure you tie them at the stake with him in front and facing forward.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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...

Actually as I just posted in the other thread you and the others are whining about - these two cases are entirely different. This one is an unprovable accusation unless there is tape of the "forced" nature of his actions. However with the cBS issue -there is infact tape which will provide proof. I'm not holding my breath for cBS to release the full interview tape though...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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?

Actually if you would have taken the time instead of trotting out more of your whining - you'll note that I find the whole issue disgusting.

oh and your last line is missing a word. "alleged" victim

CsG

 

[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"???

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: BBond
Maybe she was sleeping on her stomach and he snuck in from behind while she was sleeping awakening her (I would imagine) then she would turn at the waist and attempt to push him off with her forearm. That's one scenario.

So she's lying face down and he's on top of her entering her anally and she's pushing him off?

Uh huh.

Hey Rip, everyone knows that many supposedly religious, pious, people are some of the worst sex offenders out there. I think your in denial again.

 

[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

 

[Moonbeam]

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

And from somebody who just said, "I just know that her statement doesn't make any sense." in a way that completley redefines the meaning of sense.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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...

Actually as I just posted in the other thread you and the others are whining about - these two cases are entirely different. This one is an unprovable accusation unless there is tape of the "forced" nature of his actions. However with the cBS issue -there is infact tape which will provide proof. I'm not holding my breath for cBS to release the full interview tape though...

CsG

You still have no idea what is on that tape. You have only Starr's allegations. Yet to quote you from that thread:

"There is no "if" - Starr seems to have sent out an email correcting the misinformation that cBS tried to put out with their cleverly edited clips. I remember reading about a few people railing against Starr earlier this week after that clip aired - word must have gotten to him and he then corrected the info.

cBS should be ashamed of itself for once again airing purposefully dishonest journalism. "

Not leaving much room there for "just allegations".

And then:

"Ofcourse cBS won't provide the full interview, will it? So as usual conjur will think it's all made up."

An ironclad argument right there.

You didn't wait for proof in that thread before touting these allegations as solid.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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...

Actually as I just posted in the other thread you and the others are whining about - these two cases are entirely different. This one is an unprovable accusation unless there is tape of the "forced" nature of his actions. However with the cBS issue -there is infact tape which will provide proof. I'm not holding my breath for cBS to release the full interview tape though...

CsG

You still have no idea what is on that tape. You have only Starr's allegations. Yet to quote you from that thread:

"There is no "if" - Starr seems to have sent out an email correcting the misinformation that cBS tried to put out with their cleverly edited clips. I remember reading about a few people railing against Starr earlier this week after that clip aired - word must have gotten to him and he then corrected the info.

cBS should be ashamed of itself for once again airing purposefully dishonest journalism. "

Not leaving much room there for "just allegations".

And then:

"Ofcourse cBS won't provide the full interview, will it? So as usual conjur will think it's all made up."

An ironclad argument right there.

You didn't wait for proof in that thread before touting these allegations as solid.

Considering that Starr knows his words are on tape - I would consider them quite solid especially if you want to make the absurd comparison to the other thread...
The tape will provide the proof whereas in the other situation it will never be proven(unless there is hidden tape).

CsG

 

[conjur]

And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

I believe I realize what CsG is trying to say. We know Starr is telling the truth because CBS (probably) won't give up the tape.

Which is absurd.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

There is only one way to find out. Release the tape. However since Starr knows that his whole interview is on tape - his statements regarding them are believable. Ofcourse you and your types won't believe him but what's new...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

I believe I realize what CsG is trying to say. We know Starr is telling the truth because CBS (probably) won't give up the tape.

Which is absurd.

What is absurd is your "interpretation". cBS probably won't give up the tape but that has nothing to do with Starr telling the truth or not. YOU are trying to link the two as causation - not I.

Release the tape so it can be proven one way or another(which the other thread doesn't have).

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

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

The fact that there is no evidence is probably attributed to Hager's small penis size.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

There is only one way to find out. Release the tape. However since Starr knows that his whole interview is on tape - his statements regarding them are believable. Ofcourse you and your types won't believe him but what's new...

CsG

Excuse me while I don't believe someone hellbent on a specific agenda.

 

[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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And you know Starr is telling the truth because how?

There is only one way to find out. Release the tape. However since Starr knows that his whole interview is on tape - his statements regarding them are believable. Ofcourse you and your types won't believe him but what's new...

CsG

Excuse me while I don't believe someone hellbent on a specific agenda.

And his "agenda" would be?

Actually, don't answer. I will cut/paste this into the appropriate thread so you can answer there.

CsG

 

[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).