Only a Backwoods Perv.......

[anonymous]

Would date teenage girls half his age. I mean how sick is that? What a disgusting thing for a grown man to do! There is definitely something wrong with somebody like that!

Wait.......

What??????????

No, it can't be.........

This makes no sense!!!!!!!

It can't be true. I mean he's hip and sophisticated! He's politically correct! He's progressive!!!!!

Why he's the former mayor of San Fransodomy!!!!!!

He's the current Lt. Governor of the great progressive "golden state" of Commiefornia!!!

I thought only backwoods, Bible-thumpers did stuff like this!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's true all you hypocritical critics of Roy Moore who think he should step down merely because he used to date teenage girls half his age!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2581600&page=1

Enjoy your crow!!!!!!!

 

[Doc Who]

Two consenting adults, jealous?

So, when the news first broke that San Francisco's popular 39-year-old mayor Gavin Newsom was dating a 19-year-old model and restaurant hostess (she's since turned 20), the city buzzed with gossip -- and more than a little scuttlebutt -- about the City by the Bay's newest power couple

 

[anonymous]

Two consenting adults, jealous?

So, when the news first broke that San Francisco's popular 39-year-old mayor Gavin Newsom was dating a 19-year-old model and restaurant hostess (she's since turned 20), the city buzzed with gossip -- and more than a little scuttlebutt -- about the City by the Bay's newest power couple

No squirming out of this one, Doc Fool!
She was a teenager. He was twice her age.

What happened with Moore involved teenagers of the age of consent as well. You lose!

And I have no reason to be jealous. I have an awesome wife!!!!!!

 

[libluvsbukkake]

Two consenting adults, jealous?

So, when the news first broke that San Francisco's popular 39-year-old mayor Gavin Newsom was dating a 19-year-old model and restaurant hostess (she's since turned 20), the city buzzed with gossip -- and more than a little scuttlebutt -- about the City by the Bay's newest power couple

Proving what an Aiirheaded dipshit he really is. He’s the next “breath of fresh air” governor of California. I cannot imagine what I would have to talk about with a 20 year-Old, but hey, rock on Beavis.

 

[Vagitarian]

No squirming out of this one, Doc Fool!
She was a teenager. He was twice her age.

What happened with Moore involved teenagers of the age of consent as well. You lose!

And I have no reason to be jealous. I have an awesome wife!!!!!!

Two subjects here: 1) Dating underage people 2) Dating someone 15 years your junior.

As long as the other person is 'of age', you have every right to go for it - next!

 

[anonymous]

Two subjects here: 1) Dating underage people 2) Dating someone 15 years your junior.

As long as the other person is 'of age', you have every right to go for it - next!

The fact is that Newsom had a bigger age gap and it was more 20 years than 15, than Moore.

But you are correct in that as long as the girl is of age then it is the business of the man and the girl.

My objective, which I achieved, was to illustrate the hypocrisy and bigotry of those who attacked Moore for doing something perfectly legal and not inherently immoral.

 

[Vagitarian]

The fact is that Newsom had a bigger age gap and it was more 20 years than 15, than Moore.

But you are correct in that as long as the girl is of age then it is the business of the man and the girl.

My objective, which I achieved, was to illustrate the hypocrisy and bigotry of those who attacked Moore for doing something perfectly legal and not inherently immoral.

OK, then what's your reasoning for attacking me for doing something perfectly legal?

 

[anonymous]

OK, then what's your reasoning for attacking me for doing something perfectly legal?

Notice I put the qualifier of immoral in there. What you do is immoral. It violates historical morality which is Biblical morality. Most everything you do used to be against the law. To our detriment the law has changed in many respects.

Everything that's legal is not necessarily moral.

 

[Vagitarian]

Notice I put the qualifier of immoral in there. What you do is immoral. It violates historical morality which is Biblical morality. Most everything you do used to be against the law. To our detriment the law has changed in many respects.

Everything that's legal is not necessarily moral.

Actually, all I did was use your own terminology: "hypocrisy and bigotry of those who attacked for doing something perfectly legal and not inherently immoral."

 

[anonymous]

Actually, all I did was use your own terminology: "hypocrisy and bigotry of those who attacked for doing something perfectly legal and not inherently immoral."

Vag, I'm trying to be nice here. You are not properly using my terminology.

I obviously consider your behavior inherently immoral. My standard for morality comes from the Bible and majority opinion based upon the Bible.

While that doesn't automatically make you wrong, it does substantially weaken your case and puts a heavy burden of proof on you.

Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm being sincere. Neither one of us knows with certainty if we are right but it seems to be that you have little if any appreciation for the fact that while that is the case, arguments whether they are ultimately correct or not can be stronger or weaker than their competitive arguments.

You too often casually overlook the fact that you have a huge disadvantage based upon historical fact, anthroplogical and sociological research and majority opinion as well as other factors. It doesn't make you wrong necessarily but it doesn't make your argument the stronger either.

 

[Vagitarian]

Vag, I'm trying to be nice here. You are not properly using my terminology.

I obviously consider your behavior inherently immoral. My standard for morality comes from the Bible and majority opinion based upon the Bible.

While that doesn't automatically make you wrong, it does substantially weaken your case and puts a heavy burden of proof on you.

Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm being sincere. Neither one of us knows with certainty if we are right but it seems to be that you have little if any appreciation for the fact that while that is the case, arguments whether they are ultimately correct or not can be stronger or weaker than their competitive arguments.

You too often casually overlook the fact that you have a huge disadvantage based upon historical fact, anthroplogical and sociological research and majority opinion as well as other factors. It doesn't make you wrong necessarily but it doesn't make your argument the stronger either.

Not properly using your terminology? I didn't USE it I just quoted you. YOU used it not me.

'Heavy burden of proof on me?' Wtf do I need to prove? Nothing. My 'case'? I have no 'case' pending as I am on trial for nothing since I have done nothing wrong. I have a huge disadvantage? On what? I'm in no contest.

Just like Moore, I have done nothing wrong and I need to prove nothing to anyone.

 

[anonymous]

Not properly using your terminology? I didn't USE it I just quoted you. YOU used it not me.

'Heavy burden of proof on me?' Wtf do I need to prove? Nothing. My 'case'? I have no 'case' pending as I am on trial for nothing since I have done nothing wrong. I have a huge disadvantage? On what? I'm in no contest.

Just like Moore, I have done nothing wrong and I need to prove nothing to anyone.

Yes, and I'm schooling you in its proper use since you're obviously ignorant of how to properly use it.

Your hysterical response is sadly proof that I am entirely correct in calling you shallow.

I've tried to deal with you on a rational and respectful basis. It's not working. All I'm getting from you is attitude and avoidance of serious discussion.

 

[Doc Who]

Vag, I'm trying to be nice here. You are not properly using my terminology.

I obviously consider your behavior inherently immoral. My standard for morality comes from the Bible and majority opinion based upon the Bible.

While that doesn't automatically make you wrong, it does substantially weaken your case and puts a heavy burden of proof on you.

Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm being sincere. Neither one of us knows with certainty if we are right but it seems to be that you have little if any appreciation for the fact that while that is the case, arguments whether they are ultimately correct or not can be stronger or weaker than their competitive arguments.

You too often casually overlook the fact that you have a huge disadvantage based upon historical fact, anthroplogical and sociological research and majority opinion as well as other factors. It doesn't make you wrong necessarily but it doesn't make your argument the stronger either.

Your bible just like the koran and tora are nothing more than toilet paper.

 

[anonymous]

Your bible just like the koran and tora are nothing more than toilet paper.

The Bible and Torah are the basis of Western Civilization. You are an ignorant fool. Case closed.

 

[Vagitarian]

The Bible and Torah are the basis of Western Civilization. You are an ignorant fool. Case closed.

I can handle the Torah, the bible has some good stuff but goers a little too far. It was good 2000 years ago but people distort it. The sexual restrictions are outdated.

 

[anonymous]

I can handle the Torah, the bible has some good stuff but goers a little too far. It was good 2000 years ago but people distort it. The sexual restrictions are outdated.

A fool would think so, do of course you do.

 

[libluvsbukkake]

Your bible just like the koran and tora are nothing more than toilet paper.

Except that you wouldn’t have the balls to tell a Muslim that Methuselah.

 

[anonymous]

A fool would think so, do of course you do.

Old men who lived 2000 years ago do NOT get to tell us how to live our lives and who to enjoy our natural gifts with.

 

[anonymous]

Old men who lived 2000 years ago do NOT get to tell us how to live our lives and who to enjoy our natural gifts with.

It's not old men, fool. It's God and he gets to make the rules and yes, punish those who don't obey them.

 

[Vagitarian]

It's not old men, fool. It's God and he gets to make the rules and yes, punish those who don't obey them.

If he doesn't have the power to intervene out of super natural dignity, then he doesn't get to punish. Reward and punishment are here on Earth - not in the sky.