Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh bite me. He wanted to marry her. By law she was underage at 17.
One of the worst moments in music history? Means your a lamo who doesn't know jack shit about the history of music.
He was banging her before she hit 17, come on..
And he's been with girls that were younger. And BRAGGED about it on VH1.
He's also never denied throat fucking Courtney Love when she was 13.
Nasty. And what's sad is, I don't know if its more nasty that he let such a skank blow him, ir that he let a kid blow him. Either way or both, gross.
What you mean ? If a 50 something gets blown by a 20 something, then its okay with you that a 14 year old gets screwed by a 30 something ?
What about groping a married woman or getting a blow job from an intern in the white house?
Nope. All consenting adults.
Exactly. Anyone trying to make a comparison between what consenting adults do and what an old man does to little girls is really out of touch with reality and has a piss poor set of values.
Just because you would be okay with a pedophile president doesn't mean Ds would even consider it.
Nope. All consenting adults.
Exactly. Anyone trying to make a comparison between what consenting adults do and what an old man does to little girls is really out of touch with reality and has a piss poor set of values.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Exactly. Anyone trying to make a comparison between what consenting adults do and what an old man does to little girls is really out of touch with reality and has a piss poor set of values.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.
Nope. All consenting adults.
Exactly. Anyone trying to make a comparison between what consenting adults do and what an old man does to little girls is really out of touch with reality and has a piss poor set of values.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Eyah..
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue. And that doesn't even count Wanita Brodrick who was coerced into dropping her case. There is no doubt what was done to her.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Exactly. Anyone trying to make a comparison between what consenting adults do and what an old man does to little girls is really out of touch with reality and has a piss poor set of values.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Neither was Selene Walters, who was raped by Ronald Reagan.
Funny you folks never ever bring that up.
Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue. And that doesn't even count Wanita Brodrick who was coerced into dropping her case. There is no doubt what was done to her.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue. And that doesn't even count Wanita Brodrick who was coerced into dropping her case. There is no doubt what was done to her.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Actually, Skippy, my point was not a diversion at all.
That you don't care when leftists commit sex crimes refutes your point that sex crimes are a massive issue for you. It is not only not a diversion, it is dead on center.
When your standard is not applied to yourself, it's not a standard, it's a political point.
Can you find one post where I have supported a sex offender?Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?
Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?
No, but you DO SUPPORT peanut butter and you know it!!!
(slams phone down)
We all have our addictions: Nugent likes young girls,Toronto mayor like crack and I like honey peanut butter.
Oh goody goody!!!
Once again, we see the Statist criticizing without specificity, logic or reason.
Look, I don't think Sweaty Teddy would be a serious candidate outside of a local election, but if I'm going to suggest anyone is unfit for office, I'm going to back that up with specific reasons relating to that person's positions, voting record, political philosophy, etc.
Why is it that you central planner types always seem to use emotionally-based and ad hominem arguments without stating specifically what you don't like about a person?
Actually, Skippy, my point was not a diversion at all.
That you don't care when leftists commit sex crimes refutes your point that sex crimes are a massive issue for you. It is not only not a diversion, it is dead on center.
When your standard is not applied to yourself, it's not a standard, it's a political point.
Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?
Actually, Skippy, my point was not a diversion at all.
That you don't care when leftists commit sex crimes refutes your point that sex crimes are a massive issue for you. It is not only not a diversion, it is dead on center.
When your standard is not applied to yourself, it's not a standard, it's a political point.
Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?
Reading is fundamental
Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?
Reading is fundamental
What do you mean?
