Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child.
And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.
Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.
Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.
 |
Not even man enough to own it now?
Original post on it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bk400
I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine, but when you're a married 34 year old with kids and are accused of statutory rape -- and your best defense is (i) that the sex only started when the girl was 16 and (ii) the sex only occurred in a state where the age of consent happens to be 16 -- you're basically a douchebag. If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.
|
To which you replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.
|
So what sexual mores involving Rose do you have "no problem with" as a part of your political outlook? The only one being discussed, which you leaped to defend, was Rose's history with 12-16 year old girls. You know damn well that was what was being discussed lol. At least have a better cover story when you finally realize the pedo shit is a bad look.
It's Wednesday here. There is a thing called timezones.