I feel so bad for the kids after what 7 gay men did to them at a Houston mall.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,937]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Former cop that doesn't know how DNA works but he's a crack at figuring out hair color 

 

1 hour ago, squistion said:

There is no physical evidence, and no DNA tying The Central Park Five to the crime. None.

I don't get why you don't accept the DNA. Are you that desperate to defend Trump? (who refuses to admit he was wrong by declaring TCPF guilty and asking for the death penalty pre-trial).

So? However did we convict anyone prior to DNA?  Let me explain something to you. The DNA is in the blood and semen. That’s what was collected via what’s called a Vitullo kit. They didn’t do dna swabs on the victims body. That’s not  how it worked in 19 eighty fuckin 9.  A lack of dna or the presence of DNA evidence doesn’t exonerate or convict anyone on its own. It’s part of the evidence. Do you understand? 

[MDC 5,963]

48 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

In retrospect I should not have written that CDub’s choice to label these criminals as “7 gay men” was “almost as horrific” as the crime itself. That was a very poor choice of words on my part and I apologize for them. 
 

I still object to the way he phrased it, but obviously it’s nothing close to the crime itself. 

I almost never agree with anything you have to say but I give you credit for the mea culpa.

This thread is pure trollbait and not worth getting worked up over. Many Geeks are looking to argue and/or lonely and desperate for attention of any kind. 

[Horseman 1,590]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I did not. What I wrote about Roman Polanski’s crime was wrong, based on misinformation, and highly regrettable. But you’re mischaracterizing it deliberately. Which is something you do all the time. 

Part of your illness is your compulsive lying. 

But I always bring the receipts.

Quote

I wrote that Polanski's crime was having sex with a 12 year old who looked like she was 20, and while I considered that wrong, I didn't consider it to be on the level of someone forcing himself on a prepubescent child.

Quote

I made a similar argument to Chris Rock when I was trying to explain why some people (not necessarily me) believed that what Roman Polanski did to a 12 year old girl was not worth the condemnation it received. Of course that act was not one of violence, nor was it videotaped.

Quote

I believe that if Woody Allen had sex with a 7 year old, he ought to spend the rest of his sorry life in prison-Polanski committed a felony and he deserves to be punished, still. I shouldn't have placed quotation marks around the word crime.But my point is that this sort of crime, while bad, doesn't in my mind warrant lifetime condemnation, whereas if Woody Allen did what's being claimed would.

I know, I know, you were wrong to say that. You were misinformed!  You were emotional!  Just like you were wrong to a say that a thread title in the geek club that might be a slight towards gays is as bad as actually raping a child.

Save your excuses.  MY POINT is that you do it ALL THE TIME.  You did it just a few hours ago.  You're a psychopath.  Piss off already.

[squistion 975]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 

So? However did we convict anyone prior to DNA?  Let me explain something to you. The DNA is in the blood and semen. That’s what was collected via what’s called a Vitullo kit. They didn’t do dna swabs on the victims body. That’s not  how it worked in 19 eighty fuckin 9.  A lack of dna or the presence of DNA evidence doesn’t exonerate or convict anyone on its own. It’s part of the evidence. Do you understand? 

What is wrong with you that you can't accept the incontrovertible DNA proof here?

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

[Ron_Artest 767]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

There has to be a running list somewhere 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,937]

13 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

There has to be a running list somewhere 

Hey Gutterboy, I was looking at your wife’s hairdo.   She could use a day at the Salon. Rats nest.  

[Ron_Artest 767]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hey Gutterboy, I was looking at your wife’s hairdo.   She could use a day at the Salon. Rats nest.  

[Strike 4,092]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I did not. What I wrote about Roman Polanski’s crime was wrong, based on misinformation, and highly regrettable. But you’re mischaracterizing it deliberately. Which is something you do all the time. 

Liar.  You defended Polanski for a long long time.  It wasn't based on misinformation.  Only after being beaten over the head by literally 20+ of the best posters at FBGs repeatedly did you admit you were wrong.  You use this misinformation BS excuse to try to cover for the fact that you're a pedo POS.  Seriously, do you deny saying what Polanski did wasn't that bad because the 13 year old LOOKED older?????

[Strike 4,092]

Sorry @Horseman  Didnt know you were gonna pull out the receipts to take PedoTim behind the woodshed when I replied.  Well done.

[TimHauck 1,877]

1 hour ago, Horseman said:

Save it.  I don't want to hear how you rationalize it to yourself.

Imagine the mental illness you must have to spend months arguing that raping a girl that had developed enough that she looked older isn't that bad.  Not nearly as bad as raping a younger child.  Yeah, you did that. 

Lol, save your virtue signaling, you’re the one doing what Tim was claiming cdub was doing by stereotyping gays in general based off this crime.

18 hours ago, Horseman said:

The gays are into kids, shocker.  

 

17 hours ago, Horseman said:

Right, because the vast majority of pedos are gay. Further proof that the gay is a mental disorder.  

 

[The Real timschochet 3,192]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

Liar.  You defended Polanski for a long long time.  It wasn't based on misinformation.  Only after being beaten over the head by literally 20+ of the best posters at FBGs repeatedly did you admit you were wrong.  You use this misinformation BS excuse to try to cover for the fact that you're a pedo POS.  Seriously, do you deny saying what Polanski did wasn't that bad because the 13 year old LOOKED older?????

For the last time (and this really will be the last time- I will never again respond to this issue no matter how many times you bring it up): 

1. My comments on Polanski were based on the mistaken impression that he had consensual sex with a a young girl that he thought was of age. I was unaware, or had forgotten, that he gave her Quaaludes beforehand, which made it rape. I was unaware that she was 13, I  thought she was around 16. 13 is far more problematic than 16. When I became aware of my errors of fact, I changed my mind quickly. It didn't take months. 

2. The misinformation that I had didn’t spring out of my addled brain; they were based on the comments by famous actors who have defended Polanski and worked with him long after he committed this crime, including Harrison Ford and Adrian Brody. They attempted to excuse his behavior. Does that make them pro-pedophile? 
 

3. I do believe that there is a moral difference between someone who has sex with a prepubescent child and someone who has sex with a physically developed teenager. Neither act should be permissible in our society; both are wrong and should be punished. But the former is far worse; that is the argument I made at the time and even when I retracted my initial statement defending Polanski I continued to make this argument. 
 

4. You have spent years now constantly calling me a pedophile as a result of these statements. That’s your prerogative but hopefully cooler minds will read this post and judge for themselves. As I wrote, I’m done with it; I will never respond to this again. My last word on the matter. 

[Strike 4,092]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

For the last time (and this really will be the last time- I will never again respond to this issue no matter how many times you bring it up): 

1. My comments on Polanski were based on the mistaken impression that he had consensual sex with a a young girl that he thought was of age. I was unaware, or had forgotten, that he gave her Quaaludes beforehand, which made it rape. I was unaware that she was 13, I  thought she was around 16. 13 is far more problematic than 16. When I became aware of my errors of fact, I changed my mind quickly. It didn't take months. 

2. The misinformation that I had didn’t spring out of my addled brain; they were based on the comments by famous actors who have defended Polanski and worked with him long after he committed this crime, including Harrison Ford and Adrian Brody. They attempted to excuse his behavior. Does that make them pro-pedophile? 
 

3. I do believe that there is a moral difference between someone who has sex with a prepubescent child and someone who has sex with a physically developed teenager. Neither act should be permissible in our society; both are wrong and should be punished. But the former is far worse; that is the argument I made at the time and even when I retracted my initial statement defending Polanski I continued to make this argument. 
 

4. You have spent years now constantly calling me a pedophile as a result of these statements. That’s your prerogative but hopefully cooler minds will read this post and judge for themselves. As I wrote, I’m done with it; I will never respond to this again. My last word on the matter. 

Okay pedo Tim. 

[Strike 4,092]

So PedoTim, let me ask you something for clarification purposes.  If raping a 7 year old is a 10 on a 1 to 10 scale of good to bad, what number would you say what Polanski did is?

[TimHauck 1,877]

Okay now that Tim has admitted what he said was metal helmet dumb, are any righties gonna call out the dude claiming the Central Park 5 were actually guilty of rape?

[The Phantom's Phantom 14]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

So PedoTim, let me ask you something for clarification purposes.  If raping a 7 year old is a 10 on a 1 to 10 scale of good to bad, what number would you say what Polanski did is?

Give it up bro, this is a bad look for you.

[Strike 4,092]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Okay now that Tim has admitted what he said was metal helmet dumb, are any righties gonna call out the dude claiming the Central Park 5 were actually guilty of rape?

Tim hasn't admitted sh@t.  He thinks it's significantly better if someone rapes an 11 year old instead of a 13 year old.  And that's what he has posted and not tried to walk back.  I believe he actually thinks a lot worse.  I was just rereading a thread over at FBGs from AFTER he apologized for his Polanski comments where he thinks Polanski should spend a couple of years behind bars.  He believes a proper sentence for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is a couple of years.  Fock him and his pedophilia.

[TimHauck 1,877]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

Tim hasn't admitted sh@t.  He thinks it's significantly better if someone rapes an 11 year old instead of a 13 year old.  And that's what he has posted and not tried to walk back.  I believe he actually thinks a lot worse.  I was just rereading a thread over at FBGs from AFTER he apologized for his Polanski comments where he thinks Polanski should spend a couple of years behind bars.  He believes a proper sentence for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is a couple of years.  Fock him and his pedophilia.

I’ll take that as a no to my question

[Hardcore troubadour 12,937]

27 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Okay now that Tim has admitted what he said was metal helmet dumb, are any righties gonna call out the dude claiming the Central Park 5 were actually guilty of rape?

I have a name puzzy. Do it yourself. 

[Strike 4,092]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’ll take that as a no to my question

Why do you always expect us to call out everything?  As I've told you before I only comment on issues I'm informed about.  I vaguely remember this case but don't think even when it was current it was one I read that much about.  So, No, I'm not calling anyone out on it.  I will call.out a proven pedo like Tim though.  Why won't you???

 

 

[lickin_starfish 1,518]

Once again, the board liberals jam up a thread, defending pedophiles, gays, and other degenerates. Gross people.

[squistion 975]

2 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

Once again, the board liberals jam up a thread, defending pedophiles, gays, and other degenerates. Gross people.

Pedophiles, Gays and Degenerates, Oh, my! 

[TimHauck 1,877]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Why do you always expect us to call out everything?  As I've told you before I only comment on issues I'm informed about.  I vaguely remember this case but don't think even when it was current it was one I read that much about.  So, No, I'm not calling anyone out on it.  I will call.out a proven pedo like Tim though.  Why won't you???

 

 

I did

[Hardcore troubadour 12,937]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I did

Such a puzzy.  

[Strike 4,092]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I did

Link?

[TimHauck 1,877]

37 minutes ago, Strike said:

Link?

 

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Tim has admitted what he said was metal helmet dumb

 

[Strike 4,092]

Just now, TimHauck said:

 

 

That's not calling him out for being pro pedo.  That's letting him off the hook.  He believes raping an 11 year old is way worse than raping a 13 year old.   Today!!!  He still believes that.  Yet you let him off the hook......

[TimHauck 1,877]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

That's not calling him out for being pro pedo.  That's letting him off the hook.  He believes raping an 11 year old is way worse than raping a 13 year old.   Today!!!  He still believes that.  Yet you let him off the hook......

Do you disagree that the younger the victims are, the worse it is?  I mean isn’t that the whole idea behind this entire thread?

[Strike 4,092]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Do you disagree that the younger the victims are, the worse it is?  I mean isn’t that the whole idea behind this entire thread?

On some level.  Tim makes it sound like night and day when it's minimally different.  And, trying to be fair, I specifically asked Tim to quantify that difference on a scale of 1 to 10.  He has chosen not to partake of that opportunity to clarify his stance.  I will not give the benefit of the doubt to someone like that, especially having read as much of his posts on this subject as I have.  He's a pedo defender who only pretends otherwise because of the backlash he has received.  But deep down he still is.  On the other hand, you just shrug it off and give him a pass.

[TimHauck 1,877]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

On some level.  Tim makes it sound like night and day when it's minimally different.  And, trying to be fair, I specifically asked Tim to quantify that difference on a scale of 1 to 10.  He has chosen not to partake of that opportunity to clarify his stance.  I will not give the benefit of the doubt to someone like that, especially having read as much of his posts on this subject as I have.  He's a pedo defender who only pretends otherwise because of the backlash he has received.  But deep down he still is.  On the other hand, you just shrug it off and give him a pass.

Can you clarify what he said that was “defending pedos”?

edit: I should add that I may have missed it as he writes a lot so I don’t always read it all 

[Strike 4,092]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Can you clarify what he said that was “defending pedos”?

edit: I should add that I may have missed it as he writes a lot so I don’t always read it all 

Horseman posted some of his gems earlier today.  I suggest you go read them.

[The Real timschochet 3,192]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

  And, trying to be fair, I specifically asked Tim to quantify that difference on a scale of 1 to 10.  He has chosen not to partake of that opportunity to clarify his stance.  

Because I thought I did. But for the record: 

1. Any kind of rape is bad and deserves prison time. How much I don’t know, depends on the rape. Forcible violent rape being the worst kind. 

2. Statutory rape (consensual) with a teenager is a little different. It still should be illegal, it’s still morally wrong. But if the teenager is older it’s not AS wrong. 

3. Sex with a prepubescent is no different than rape. Lock the culprit away and throw away the key. I wouldn’t be opposed to the death penalty, honestly, for this crime. As bad as it gets. 

4. You suggested that I see a difference between 11 and 13. That’s absurd. But I DO see a difference between 6 and 15. But ONLY if the 15 year old is the victim of statutory rape, and not actual forcible rape. If it’s actual rape there’s not much of a moral difference at all.  

5. I don’t think homosexuality plays any kind of factor in this topic whatsoever. That goes to my original complaint about this thread. 

[BunnysBastatrds 1,954]

22 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

They are gay men, what should they be called? 

 Fawking phaggot child molesting rapists 

[Horseman 1,590]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

For the last time (and this really will be the last time- I will never again respond to this issue no matter how many times you bring it up): 

..........

I will never respond to this again. My last word on the matter. 

We'd all be rich if we had a nickel for every time you've said this too.  Oh look, that promise lasted a whole couple hours:

21 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Because I thought I did. But for the record: 

1. Any kind of rape is bad and deserves prison time. How much I don’t know, depends on the rape. Forcible violent rape being the worst kind. 

2. Statutory rape (consensual) with a teenager is a little different. It still should be illegal, it’s still morally wrong. But if the teenager is older it’s not AS wrong. 

3. Sex with a prepubescent is no different than rape. Lock the culprit away and throw away the key. I wouldn’t be opposed to the death penalty, honestly, for this crime. As bad as it gets. 

4. You suggested that I see a difference between 11 and 13. That’s absurd. But I DO see a difference between 6 and 15. But ONLY if the 15 year old is the victim of statutory rape, and not actual forcible rape. If it’s actual rape there’s not much of a moral difference at all.  

5. I don’t think homosexuality plays any kind of factor in this topic whatsoever. That goes to my original complaint about this thread. 

You just can't help yourself.  Sure sign of mental illness.  You're a pathological liar and a psychopath.  

[Horseman 1,590]

Saying rape isn't as bad if the girl is past puberty is only something a predator would say.  Full stop.  

[Engorgeous George 1,292]

7 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. Everything you know is based on what a psycho that gang raped his own mother said.  

Everything?

[TimHauck 1,877]

33 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

2. Statutory rape (consensual) with a teenager is a little different. It still should be illegal, it’s still morally wrong. But if the teenager is older it’s not AS wrong. 

Define “older” here

[Hardcore troubadour 12,937]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Everything?

Yup. Everything that got these savages off is. No case without it. 

[Horseman 1,590]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

You suggested that I see a difference between 11 and 13. That’s absurd. But I DO see a difference between 6 and 15.

 @Strike used those ages because the average age girls enter puberty is 11 and Polanski raped a 13 year old.  Don't walk it back now.

 

[squistion 975]

50 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yup. Everything that got these savages off is. No case without it. 

Outside of that pesky DNA. 

[The Real timschochet 3,192]

55 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Define “older” here

I dunno. 15, 16. Obviously the younger you get the worse it is.