Bush unwittingly chooses pedophile to push tax cuts

Here's subtomic's text before and after posting the two stories:

1. Yesterday... Today...

2. "Considering the makeup of his 2nd term Cabinet and advisors, I bet Bush still keeps using this guy as an example of Americans benefiting from tax cuts."

Sorry but "unwittingly" doesn't take the sting out of those framers!

 

I believe she was underage legally. I think for the 17 to be valid the couple has to be within a certain age. I'm not sure though.

 

Somebody link Bush to NAMBLA. I wanna hear giddy defend them.

 

There's no defending NAMBLA... no matter what!

What have I said technically that is wrong here? The man is not a pedophile by definition. The girl is over age 16. We don't have any evidence that he preyed on her or the implied other girls.

I said he was wrong. I also said that there was no evidence that he was a criminal or a pervert.

 

Took years, literally, to find your limit for devil's advocacy, but I finally did it. Proud of that. It was freaking hard.

Wish you made the laws, giddy. I'd be dating girls 'over 16' every night if you made the laws. In fact, if you were our moral arbiter, I might even get into religion and see what kinds of impressionable betties I could score around the churches. Nothing's hotter than repression, after all. Lucky for all those pretty young things, you don't make the laws so I've gotta settle for chicks over 18 and that self righteous minister has to settle for criminal charges. He deserves it. Law or no, he's a hypocrite of the highest order and, since hell doesn't exist, we've gotta punish him here on God's green.

Gotta say, I'm still spinning over finding your limit. It was probably the gay thing. NAMGLA, I'm figuring would have been A-OK. After all, a 17 or 16 or 15 or 10 year old girl might have just flirted really hard and who could resist that??? With a young girl, it might have even been true love, especially with a trusted, religious authority figure, but with a young boy? No way, Jose! "No matter what!" It's encouraging that you, at least, understand your complicated ethics.

 

We do have evidence that he preyed upon her. When a man of his age, who is an authority position over a girl of her age, and dates her, he has preyed upon her. He's taken his position in the church, and of authority, his senority, and preyed upon her youth, naivete, and inexperience.

There is no doubt that he has preyed upon this underage girl.

 

Originally posted by Batman Jones

Took years, literally, to find your limit for devil's advocacy, but I finally did it. Proud of that. It was freaking hard.

<b>You did not find the limit; you did, however, find something that was outside of the limit....</b>

Wish you made the laws, giddy. I'd be dating girls 'over 16' every night if you made the laws. In fact, if you were our moral arbiter, I might even get into religion and see what kinds of impressionable betties I could score around the churches. Nothing's hotter than repression, after all. Lucky for all those pretty young things, you don't make the laws so I've gotta settle for chicks over 18 and that self righteous minister has to settle for criminal charges. He deserves it. Law or no, he's a hypocrite of the highest order and, since hell doesn't exist, we've gotta punish him here on God's green.

<b>I did say that the guy was wrong. What I also said (and no one has yet to dispute or disprove this) is that the guy is not a criminal or a pedophile. I checked the laws; the age of consent for a girl in Iowa is age 16 (14 for boys).</b>

Gotta say, I'm still spinning over finding your limit. It was probably the gay thing. NAMGLA, I'm figuring would have been A-OK. After all, a 17 or 16 or 15 or 10 year old girl might have just flirted really hard and who could resist that??? With a young girl, it might have even been true love, especially with a trusted, religious authority figure, but with a young boy? No way, Jose! "No matter what!" It's encouraging that you, at least, understand your complicated ethics.

<b>The discussion here does not represent my "complicated" ethics. It represents parrying with the arguments of those seeking to slime Bush in this mishap. I said the guy was wrong. I also said he was not a criminal according to the statutes. I believe that that turns out to be true... yet you carry on so! You have gone into one of the premature T_J celebrations...</b>

 

FWIW...the legal age of consent in Texas is 17. There are no other qualifiers.

From the Texas Penal Code:

§ 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits
an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the
person's spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex,
the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes
the child to engage in sexual contact; or
(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire
of any person:
(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the
person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or
(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus
or any part of the child's genitals.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim
and of the opposite sex;
(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the
victim at the time of the offense; and
(3) at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of
Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a
reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this
section.
(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following
acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person:
(1) any touching by a person, including touching
through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals
of a child; or
(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child,
including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any
part of the genitals of a person.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the
second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of
the third degree.

 

As expected everyone is jumping to the topic of underage sex by a pastor but are overlooking that this is just another example of how bad of a job Bush's staff is doing on vetting.

This weekend we've seen an embarrassing setback with Kerrick's nomination to Homeland Security over something that should've been easily been spotted by vetting and now Bush upholds someone who turns out to be a moral hypocrite.

This is another example of a disturbing pattern we've seen with this administration of presenting people and info that ends up to not be what they claim.

 

I'm curious how you determine how many lives were saved by invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Kind of interesting the difference between girls and boys. I'm wondering what Iowa law enforcement would do if they caught a 30 year old man having a consensual sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy.

Technically both are legal, I don't think Iowa has anti-sodomy laws, but I gotta imagine that there would be some sort of legal action against the 30 year old man than say if it was a 30 year old woman caught having sex with a 14 year old boy.

Of course whether the Pastor in question affair was legal still doesn't excuse him from being a hypocrite big time.

 

Here's the page that I reviewed: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Weird stuff. In New Mexico, the age of consent for heterosexual activity is 17 for boys and girls but for boy/boy or girl/girl homosexual activity the age is 13. Go figure....

Where age limits are repealed does that mean that the homosexual behavior is illegal?

 

Sweet Irony! By trying to stop its advance I get credit for taking it somewhere...