Obama nominates child molesting homo for Secretary of the Army

[Nick M]

So I ask you again, do you have proof that Fanning is a pedophile? .

He admits it. There is a reason homos always have a big age difference with "partners". So yeah, that isn't his son.

 

[rexlunae]

well, I wouldn't call you a liar

Suit yourself. Not that I believe you, but if that's the story you want to tell, fine, I really don't care.

 

[rexlunae]

you must have misunderstood

Nope.

Nick's evidence or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether or not Fanning is a child molester

But it's relevant to whether Nick is a liar.

in a court of law, perhaps

It was an accusation of a crime. Seems like the prevailing standard is pretty high. But sure, it may be legal to make obviously spurious claims about public figures. If that's your schtick, dig in.

we're not in a court of law, we're posting anonymously on a discussion board on the internet

Then say whatever you like, and earn whatever credibility you deserve. You always have.

 

[rexlunae]

He admits it.

Let's have a quote then.

There is a reason homos always have a big age difference with "partners". So yeah, that isn't his son.

It's interesting, there was a thread awhile back here about the Duck Dynasty guy advocating marrying teenaged girls. Here's a comment from SOD:

i think you're a retard if you think marriage and pedophilia have anything to do with each other

unless you're even more retarded than you appear to be, and you believe that a young wife will never age

So, marry 'em young, and let them grow into it. Really?

And you, Nicky? This was you:

AB and rusha think they 9teenagers) should be able to fornicate all they want without marriage...

Not totally clear whether that was a swipe at teenagers having sex, or justifying marrying them off so that they could have sex. But one thing you won't find in that thread: Nick saying anything about Phil Robertson being a pedophile, even as he justifies marrying off teenaged girls for the sake of sexing them up.

As for the boyfriend, he certainly looks young, but of legal age. I don't know how old he is, but I don't see any reason to believe there's anything wrong.

 

[intojoy]

That is not a fact. The actual fact is that far more heterosexuals are pedophiles.

Takes one to know one


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[WizardofOz]

Zing! lain:

 

[Nick M]

As the strawmen and red herrings fall, is there no other replies to the "openly gay" Secretary of Defense?

 

[rexlunae]

As the strawmen and red herrings fall, is there no other replies to the "openly gay" Secretary of Defense?

I think it's great. But it's Secretary of the Army, if I'm not mistaken.

Does this mean you're dropping the slanderous claim from the top of the thread?

 

[Rusha]

Let's have a quote then.

It's interesting, there was a thread awhile back here about the Duck Dynasty guy advocating marrying teenaged girls. Here's a comment from SOD:

So, marry 'em young, and let them grow into it. Really?

And you, Nicky? This was you:

Not totally clear whether that was a swipe at teenagers having sex, or justifying marrying them off so that they could have sex. But one thing you won't find in that thread: Nick saying anything about Phil Robertson being a pedophile, even as he justifies marrying off teenaged girls for the sake of sexing them up.

As for the boyfriend, he certainly looks young, but of legal age. I don't know how old he is, but I don't see any reason to believe there's anything wrong.

Yep, who could forget the nasty Phil Robertson and his support of the adult men who prey on teenage GIRLS.


"Look, you wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks." Phil Robertson

 

[WizardofOz]

Nick M forgets own thread title

 

[CabinetMaker]

He admits it. There is a reason homos always have a big age difference with "partners". So yeah, that isn't his son.

It is only pedophilia if the child is 13 or younger. Are you attempting to say that Fanning only takes partners that are under age 13?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Takes one to know one


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Did you mature past the 7th grade?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Anna's position, and that of Cabinetmaker, is that without proof, Fanning is not a child molester.

That is not my position at all. I do not know anything personally about the man. The only thing that I know is what he has said. What I do know is that it is a sin to bear false witness against another person based my own personal biases. What I know is that I am a poor witness for Christ when I lie about that which I do not know.

but whether or not Fanning is a child molester has absolutely nothing to do with Nick's statement or Nick's proof or lack thereof

It is the central issue. Nick stated categorically that Fanning is a child molester. If you do not know that it is true then you should not be saying anything. If you have reason to suspect that he might be, take your evidence to the authorities that can investigate.

In short, my position is that if you would not stand before God and state that you know something is factually true you should keep your mouth closed. It's not about Fanning, it's about your willingness to bear false witness before God.

 

[intojoy]

Did you mature past the 7th grade?

If we did, why are we on TOL?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[glorydaz]

Would you be willing to stand before God as a witness and attest that you witnessed the man sexually asulting children? If not, why would you be willing to state that on a public forum?

What about you Nick M. will stand before God and swear that you witnessed this man sexually assaulting children?

The fact that he has sex with another male is molesting the innocent minds of all children. That's where all perversions start....in the mind.

 

[WizardofOz]

The fact that he has sex with another male is molesting the innocent minds of all children. That's where all perversions start....in the mind.

Ah. So that is what Nick M meant

 

[glorydaz]

It is only pedophilia if the child is 13 or younger. Are you attempting to say that Fanning only takes partners that are under age 13?

Bull. If 13 is your age criteria, it's no wonder you all deny gays were molested as youths.

All those gay guys out there were "gotten to" when they were youths....11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Bull. If 13 is your age criteria, it's no wonder you all deny gays were molested as youths.

All those gay guys out there were "gotten to" when they were youths....11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age.

13 is not my criteria, it is the definition of pedophilia. When you are going to accuse somebody, do do honestly. Accuse them for what you know, not what you assume you know.

 

[ok doser]

But it's relevant to whether Nick is a liar.

no it isn't

nick might have made his claim, as you believe, without a shred of evidence to support it

if what he claims is true, he's not lying

But one thing you won't find in that thread: Nick saying anything about Phil Robertson being a pedophile...

that's because Robertson isn't a pedophile :idunno:

 

[annabenedetti]

He admits it.

Prove it.

There is a reason homos always have a big age difference with "partners". So yeah, that isn't his son.

That man isn't a child.