United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.
Only drug dealers sought younger women, got it.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
TheH2 wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Yup, dirty tricks just as I expected. I'm going to go ahead and conclude this lie has been debunked.

https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.



Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".
16 is the age of consent.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.
Only drug dealers sought younger women, got it.


Uppity brought it up. Take it up with him.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Yup, dirty tricks just as I expected. I'm going to go ahead and conclude this lie has been debunked.

https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.



Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".
16 is the age of consent.


Is this an area in which you expect from your politicians "just barely" meeting the minimum standard of consent to avoid statutory rape? If so, I bet there is a Danville in Alabama, AG, because it's apparently your sort of place.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 2551
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Yup, dirty tricks just as I expected. I'm going to go ahead and conclude this lie has been debunked.

https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.



Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".
16 is the age of consent.


We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
[quote="UpstateSCHokie"]Yup, dirty tricks just as I expected. I'm going to go ahead and conclude this lie has been debunked.

https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.



Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".
16 is the age of consent.


Is this an area in which you expect from your politicians "just barely" meeting the minimum standard of consent to avoid statutory rape? If so, I bet there is a Danville in Alabama, AG, because it's apparently your sort of place.[/quote]It's a bright line. I like how you think Danville is an insult.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/[/quote]

sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy[/quote]
He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.[/quote]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.[/quote]


Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]

We know it was common knowledge that he dated teenagers. And we know that there is an accuser (14), and a mother who describe a meeting with Roy, and who reference a custody hearing on a certain date that matches the time frame. the story told by the accuser (14) matches the sort of behavior (sharing alcohol - taking back to his house) that the other, slightly older girls with whom - from his admission - it seems likely he was with. (To my knowledge he as only denied knowing the 14 year old.)

To cwtcr's credit - I would not be able to convict someone on this evidence if I was serving on a jury. The accuser turned about to be (from all appearances) a meth head or some other sort of low life.

But, I think I would be able to factor it in if I were voting for my senator.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
[quote="UpstateSCHokie"]Yup, dirty tricks just as I expected. I'm going to go ahead and conclude this lie has been debunked.

https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.



Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".
16 is the age of consent.


We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- ... -opponent/[/quote]

sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy[/quote]
He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.[/quote]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.[/quote]


Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.[/quote]

That's a fair point. but I would be bothered by the fact that the mother currently backs the accuser's story. They've stood behind the article 100%. That evidence supports the notion that the mother would have known, and she did.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 2551
awesome guy wrote:
He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.


Like I said, he's a real gentleman. "He's the last true family man."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.


Like I said, he's a real gentleman. "He's the last true family man."


It's baffling to me why anybody would want him to run. He drops out and tells everyone to write in Strange, and everything goes on as normal.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.


Like I said, he's a real gentleman. "He's the last true family man."
I get it that you're mocking him, but he did follow the old ways.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 5125
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.



Meh, dating teenagers isn't my thing, but to suggest that the practice is exclusive to Alabama, necks or evangelicals is wrong. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld would like to have a word with you.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.



Meh, dating teenagers isn't my thing, but to suggest that the practice is exclusive to Alabama, necks or evangelicals is wrong. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but it's usually universally condemned. Woody Allen is not on the ticket in NY.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 5125
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.



Meh, dating teenagers isn't my thing, but to suggest that the practice is exclusive to Alabama, necks or evangelicals is wrong. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but it's usually universally condemned. Woody Allen is not on the ticket in NY.



I think looked down upon is more accurate. And Woody was a whole other kettle of fish. Like cats wouldn't touch it.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30843
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="UpstateSCHokie"]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.



Meh, dating teenagers isn't my thing, but to suggest that the practice is exclusive to Alabama, necks or evangelicals is wrong. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but it's usually universally condemned. Woody Allen is not on the ticket in NY.



I think looked down upon is more accurate. And Woody was a whole other kettle of fish. Like cats wouldn't touch it.[/quote]Woody Allen is another Bill Clinton style case. Liberals and Yankees(pardon my redundancy) will accept any sin from a liberal and 0 from a conservative. If Moore switched parties then pesto, it's acceptable to the left. These are the same people whose most senior and respected senator was a klansman, all while they were calling the right racists. Their only value is power, everything else can be sacrificed for power.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="UpstateSCHokie"]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.
H2 and Nolan are appalled that a man would be the bread winner and would initiate a relationship with a woman. They live in the age of 30 year old men being chased by 40 year old women looking for a sperm donor before their couter dries up. The idea of older men seeking younger people, much less women, is foreign and ichy to them.


Yep, its actually a pretty recent idea that older men should NOT go for younger women. Its the result of feminazi's brainwashing young people into believing that young girls should not look for a mature man that is financially secure. And as you eluded to, its now "hip" for older women to go after younger guys. That's probably part of the reason we see these teachers praying on teenage boys these days.

But I'm reminded of the lyrics of an old Jimmy Buffet song:

Quote:
I go for younger women, lived with several a while
Though I ran them away, they'd come back one day
Still could manage to smile
Just takes a while, just takes a while


But nobody that that was wrong or "creepy" when the song came out.


That song is written about a drug dealer on a two-week drunk binge. Quite the high standard.



Meh, dating teenagers isn't my thing, but to suggest that the practice is exclusive to Alabama, necks or evangelicals is wrong. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but it's usually universally condemned. Woody Allen is not on the ticket in NY.



I think looked down upon is more accurate. And Woody was a whole other kettle of fish. Like cats wouldn't touch it.[/quote]

17 plus is frowned upon. I believe 14 is universally rape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8677
ip_law-hokie wrote:
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy-moores-accuser-worked-democratic-leaders-actively-campaigning-moores-opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy[/quote]
He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.[/quote]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.[/quote]


Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]

We know it was common knowledge that he dated teenagers. And we know that there is an accuser (14), and a mother who describe a meeting with Roy, and who reference a custody hearing on a certain date that matches the time frame. the story told by the accuser (14) matches the sort of behavior (sharing alcohol - taking back to his house) that the other, slightly older girls with whom - from his admission - it seems likely he was with. (To my knowledge he as only denied knowing the 14 year old.)

To cwtcr's credit - I would not be able to convict someone on this evidence if I was serving on a jury. The accuser turned about to be (from all appearances) a meth head or some other sort of low life.

But, I think I would be able to factor it in if I were voting for my senator.[/quote]

so if the person you like in the race is accused of some crime with zero evidence you just assume that person is guilty? really? wow


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy-moores-accuser-worked-democratic-leaders-actively-campaigning-moores-opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.[/quote]

I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.[/quote]


Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]

We know it was common knowledge that he dated teenagers. And we know that there is an accuser (14), and a mother who describe a meeting with Roy, and who reference a custody hearing on a certain date that matches the time frame. the story told by the accuser (14) matches the sort of behavior (sharing alcohol - taking back to his house) that the other, slightly older girls with whom - from his admission - it seems likely he was with. (To my knowledge he as only denied knowing the 14 year old.)

To cwtcr's credit - I would not be able to convict someone on this evidence if I was serving on a jury. The accuser turned about to be (from all appearances) a meth head or some other sort of low life.

But, I think I would be able to factor it in if I were voting for my senator.[/quote]

so if the person you like in the race is accused of some crime with zero evidence you just assume that person is guilty? really? wow[/quote]

I wouldn't call it zero evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/p ... v=top-news

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
He did it old school, by asking permission from the parents first. I'd think a lot more of someone like him being inclusive with the family than someone like a lot of your peers that think family is irrelevant.


Like I said, he's a real gentleman. "He's the last true family man."
I get it that you're mocking him, but he did follow the old ways.


#ChristianValues

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8677
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy-moores-accuser-worked-democratic-leaders-actively-campaigning-moores-opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.[/quote]


Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]

We know it was common knowledge that he dated teenagers. And we know that there is an accuser (14), and a mother who describe a meeting with Roy, and who reference a custody hearing on a certain date that matches the time frame. the story told by the accuser (14) matches the sort of behavior (sharing alcohol - taking back to his house) that the other, slightly older girls with whom - from his admission - it seems likely he was with. (To my knowledge he as only denied knowing the 14 year old.)

To cwtcr's credit - I would not be able to convict someone on this evidence if I was serving on a jury. The accuser turned about to be (from all appearances) a meth head or some other sort of low life.

But, I think I would be able to factor it in if I were voting for my senator.[/quote]

so if the person you like in the race is accused of some crime with zero evidence you just assume that person is guilty? really? wow[/quote]

I wouldn't call it zero evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/p ... v=top-news[/quote]

what evidence, a verbal accusation..... ok, you banged a 10 year old last year... hey, you did it, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy-moores-accuser-worked-democratic-leaders-actively-campaigning-moores-opponent/


sorry MSM but actual proof is needed before I decide who is lying, so show it to me. Words are easy

He didn't deny dating h.s. girls when he was in his 30s, so that's kind of obvious now.

He did deny the allegations by the 14yo.


I see, so we're back to looking historical events through today's moral compass? Psst, here's a clue. Back in the 60's and early 70's, it was not that uncommon for older men to go for much younger girls. If a girl was 18, she was fair game and people didn't have a problem with it.

And on top of that, younger girls chased older men because they would be more financially secure then men their own age and back then, 18 y/o girls were looking to get married. Unlike today where women want to get through college and have a career before they settle down and have kids.


If you get 4 more people, corroborating evidence and Gloria Allred, you may be on to something cwtcr. Good luck.
Nothing wrong with going after younger WOMAN. This is a false equivalence. Again, we're not just talking about 18, but younger. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "if there's grass on the field play ball".[/quote]16 is the age of consent.[/quote]

We don't know that 16 was the magic number for him. We do know that he dated h.s. girls, that's about it. We do know that if any 32yo tried to pick up our daughter we'd not think too highly of him. Or, maybe you would.....[/quote]

We know it was common knowledge that he dated teenagers. And we know that there is an accuser (14), and a mother who describe a meeting with Roy, and who reference a custody hearing on a certain date that matches the time frame. the story told by the accuser (14) matches the sort of behavior (sharing alcohol - taking back to his house) that the other, slightly older girls with whom - from his admission - it seems likely he was with. (To my knowledge he as only denied knowing the 14 year old.)

To cwtcr's credit - I would not be able to convict someone on this evidence if I was serving on a jury. The accuser turned about to be (from all appearances) a meth head or some other sort of low life.

But, I think I would be able to factor it in if I were voting for my senator.[/quote]

so if the person you like in the race is accused of some crime with zero evidence you just assume that person is guilty? really? wow[/quote]

I wouldn't call it zero evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/p ... v=top-news[/quote]

what evidence, a verbal accusation..... ok, you banged a 10 year old last year... hey, you did it, right?[/quote]

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:24 pm
Posts: 780
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent
Fantastic guy. He'd been banned from a mall in Alabama for years after badgering teen girls. Sounds amazing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: New York, NY
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Fantastic guy. He'd been banned from a mall in Alabama for years after badgering teen girls. Sounds amazing.


My money would be on him winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!