Republicans Kill Anti-Child Marriage Bill: Why?

Republicans Kill Anti-Child Marriage Bill: Why?


there’s absolutely adores market but it’s
worth it we go to a bill that i cannot believe didn’t pack it’s called a concert uh… it’s called the a trial that marriage prevention act throughout the world they’re different uh…
cultures of the nation’s et cetera that practice child marriage and grows as young as ten years old married off to at people who are signifi glial
and we report on some of these cases asilomar beyond outrageous now the plastic egg rolls under the age of
seventeen that gets into some cultural differences and
so i think if you made a substance charge on this and said lower the age of something
along those lines those might be interesting comments for this bill or with the reasons
to be opposed to this bill but allow all of the top human rights groups
in the world not just in america but throughout the world or in favor of this bill bishop desmond tutu for example archbishop uh… says all you’ve got a passes this incredibly
important in our battle the combat uh… this phenomenon ’cause these girls are
obviously being sent off peddled for two young age obviously some people are conducting intensive
them and we need to stop so it seems like come on it doesn’t get any easier
than this what are people going to vote against this it it takes almost no money and and so it should be a no-brainer in fact it it wasn’t when he came to the senate shockingly
enough the past unanimously may introduce it meant by voice vote they
said okay i brought longboard evacuees uh… co-sponsored by olympia snow was a republican uh… but get along as it back safe way to
go sponsors introduced by olympia snowe as well as the turbine but among the co-sponsors
as roger wicker firm mississippi and david there from louisiana these the super easy so what happened that a pass of course not echoes of the house and even though it’s got a hundred and twelve
co-sponsors in the house also partly introduced by ander crenshaw a republican of florida and has a lot of republican support now at
the last secular published change their mind and vote no on arts alright that’s a fascinating why right so there was a couple of reasons why first
one is it cost too much are you ready for a much a cost sixty seven million dollars they just gave eight hundred and fifty e billion dollars billion in tax cuts sixty seven million cause
so much but anything that’s funny way tailhook the reality it actually is in cost anything they move
the sixty seven million from a different part of the budget because zeroed out so that doesn’t work when they go to path well you know we’re worried that these ngos
those are non governmental organizations charities by the way i thought the republican they broke non governmental organizations they weren’t
they were charred helena they say the ngos might per more promote or perform abortion totally unrelated to this business and i was in about abortion it’s
not even there’s nothing about britain this bill has nine oh with it it has in the ngos they do that at all because
our projects all these ngos are do-gooder humanitarian charity insanity and the real reason is one you have a they don’t
like the ngos busy thanks some charities in the world actually help people like to
give act condoms so they don’t catch eight-state a pack some debate helpin we getting women as safe and legal abortion
they hate so i’m not these and plus the four block everything o bombs so they killed lookit one republican was so frustrated and
this is for them to break ranks like this and shocking represent a steamboat la tourette
from ohio got up and spoke in disbelieve he let me give you quotes he said there’s no qu no new money here we would have moved the
money so the societies that are coercing young girls in a marriage we could build them with trained so they can
go to school or can make sure that they stay in school
so they’re not force in the marriage of age of twelve or thirteen all the sudden there was a fiscal argument
when that didn’t work than people had to have an abortion element
to it what this is a partisan place i’m a republican i’m glad we beat there but in the election but we’re gonna be in the majority next year but there comes a time when in the office
and off and the columns but was a good bill last night which is stop the nonsense approve the bill
and move on that’s a republican saying that this is partisanship absolute works let’s see if the rest of the media can catch
on to it and calling out on it honestly i just saw it one article on it and haven’t seen anything
since then antiabortionist looking for the partisanship i can tell is that the democrats and republicans
always just call it even it’s not even it’s the republicans incase after taste and there is no clear case than this as well so theater square specks that helped
to build web site at that point four seven support and it looks a little largest website work happen i’ve tried so you can
at your website on-the-go you’re working for a book purcell scores

100 Replies to “Republicans Kill Anti-Child Marriage Bill: Why?”

  1. @GodAthie Shouldn't it be common sense that older men should not marry younger girls?
    I agree that Washington should not set an age, but it is a human rights issue when they are forced into marrying old men.They should be able to decide when they are grown adults. Don't lean on the the constitution, it's not perfect. It was constitutional to marry a much younger female back then, the issue had rarely been brought up later.
    This news story is about how such an obvious bill could not be passed.

  2. @bistander

    i'm not saying it is not common sense… what i am saying is that

    the federal government passing these laws is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! as in UNLAWFUL…(why do people forget laws CANT go against a constitution

    the constitution IS perfect even if it isn't in its current form because it can be amended as many times as needed

  3. LOL He said Olympia Snow is a Republican.

    Yes there's an R in her name, but no, she's no more a Republican because she has an R than I am a car because I'm in my garage.

  4. Ok, I guess I really don't understand government, or at least the way this guy does. Correct me if I am wrong, but this bill came up during the lame duck session in which the Democrats still had a super majority in the House? So that being the case the Republicans had no recourse to kill the bill as he says, correct? I mean if they could kill bills, why didn't they just kill the Healthcare bill like they wanted? The numbers were the same at that point but they couldn't stop the healthcare bill?

  5. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't agree with seeing young girls forced into marriage at a young age. I'm merely asking for some clarity and even handedness with both parties. The Democrats had a super majority in the House and thus needed no Republican votes to pass, obviously Democrats had to vote against it as well. Why aren't we talking about those Democrats as well? Well that doesn't fit the agenda here then. As long as they keep us distracted w/ this stuff they have their fun in DC.

  6. @blrohm
    Couple of issues here. 1. Dems did not have a super majority in the House. The Senate had a super majority of 60 Dems. But this is only considered a super majority because it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster (the House does not have the ability to filibuster). The House had 254 Democrats at the time the vote on this bill occurred. 2. The bill was brought to the floor for a vote using a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3s majority for passage.

  7. @blrohm
    Continued..So, 272 yea votes were needed (there were only 407 voting members at the time). Only 241 were garnered. Of those 241, 229 were Democrats and 12 were Republicans. 9 Democrats voted against the bill, 157 Republicans voted against the bill. 3. Additionally, before the vote, Republicans circulated a memo to pro-life Reps alleging that the bill could fund abortions and use child marriage to overturn pro-life laws. As a result, several supporters (including co-sponsors) jumped ship.

  8. @AABonine9200 I thought that was the issue with the Senate, not the House? My point would still stand if Democrats wanted to pass this bill why did they not attempt to do so with 218 votes, which obviously could have been done easily. Peter King's contention it was an attempt to play politics so they could paint Repubs as anti-1st responders. Do you have knowledge that there weren't any provisions that could be used to the extent you just mentioned?

  9. @blrohm
    No the issue was not in the Senate, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on 12/1/10. I am not talking about the First Responders bill, but the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, as this bill is the subject of the video. Again, a suspension of the rules is used for non-controversial bills, which you would think this is (esp. since every Republican voted for it in the Senate). Peter King was not a sponsor of this bill, he voted against it.

  10. @blrohm
    As for the abortion issue, I suggest you read the bill yourself. It's only 10 pages long. It does not mention abortion or family planning. Additionally, it's not an appropriations bill. By itself, it isn't capable of providing funding for anything.

  11. I apologize I did not look at the title of the video and assumed you were responding to comments made about the other video that you already replied to. That being said the Democratic party line was that the Republicans were the party of no, so if they felt this strongly about a particluar bill why use suspension of the rules? Why not just put the bill up for a hard vote and pass with 218? I will change my terminology in the future, the Democrats had an unblockable majority in the house.

  12. @AABonine9200 the CBO still scored the bill at $67 million, so while it isn't expensive it still costs something. I don't the NGO's that this money would have been appropriated to so I can't say that the Republicans were lying about it possibly funding abortions and I also can't say they weren't. My point is with the majority in the house the Democrats could have easily passed this bill with no assistance from Republicans as they have done time and time again and yet chose not to.

  13. @blrohm
    A suspension of the rules gets a bill to the floor faster, it cuts down debate for bills that lawmakers deem to be non-controversial. There is an actual purpose for doing it. And nearly all bills voted on under a suspension of the rules have bipartisan support. And why is operating under a suspension of the rules an excuse for the vast majority of Republicans who voted against this? If Republicans had voted for it, it would have passed just the same.

  14. @blrohm
    "Based on information from the U.S. Agency for Int. Dev. on current programs to prevent child marriage, CBO estimates that the agency would require annual appropriations of $1 mil per country to implement similar or expanded programs in the 21 high-priority countries, for a total of $21 million in 2011 and $107 million over the 2011-2015 period. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $66 million over the 2011-2015 period."

  15. @AABonine9200
    Neither the bill nor the CBO mentions abortion. This a bill about preventing child marriage, what does that have to do with abortion?

  16. @AABonine9200 it's quite possible they didn't agree with the bill as written. Were all 166 congressman that voted against the bill questioned and the large majority opposed to the bill because they were afraid that the funds would go to abortions? Or were there also other reasons? What were the reasons the Democrats voted against it? I'd like to hear their opinion? Did they have the same fear? If so then why are we only faulting one party for having this opinion?

  17. @AABonine9200 I didn't say that they did. Even Cenk stated that the money would be appropriated to NGO's to carry out the initiative. As I have already stated, I don't know which NGO's he was talking about, so I wouldn't have been able to see what they do, what they provide and how they appropriate their funds. It's quite possible the congressmen who voted against it did that research and felt that the funds would be spent inappropriately. I can't say either way.

  18. @blrohm
    I'm not sure why the others voted against it, you'd have to ask them. In my opinion, you'd have to have a pretty damn good excuse to vote against a bill like this. And I haven't heard anything other than hyperbole about abortion, which doesn't even seem to have a factual basis. The point is that Republicans circulated a memo that about the bill funding abortions. It did cause some members to vote against the bill, including 2 sponsors who are both pro-life (Kaptur and Terry).

  19. @blrohm
    I never said it wouldn't cost anything. I said, by itself, the bill cannot appropriate funds to anything. It is NOT an appropriations bills. It authorizes appropriations, sure, but it does not appropriate funds. The reason I posted the quote was to illustrate where the money was supposed to be going.

  20. @AABonine9200 Well that's my point. I've heard one person's opinion, thats it and he hasn't given much back up to prove his point. He says the NGO's involved wouldn't spend it on abortion because no one is even talking about abortion and that it costs no money. Then he says well it does cost money but then goes onto say that it basically costs no money because they'll just take it from another program it was already budgetted for. Do we know what that program was?

  21. @blrohm
    Are you saying that if the government gives money to an NGO for preventing child marriage, and that NGO provides other services such as abortion, then the government is indirectly funding abortions? How exactly would you determine beforehand that funds were going to be spend inappropriately?

  22. @blrohm
    I have no idea what you are talking about here, who is "he" and how exactly could you determine what program the money was originally supposed to go to, when the bill didn't even become law?

  23. @AABonine9200 I understand that it was not an appropriations bill, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Did anyone say they voted against the bill because it appropriated funds?

  24. @AABonine9200 "He" is Cenk, from the video, I used his name previously in the same post, so using HE would refer to that same person. My point with knowing where the money was coming form, we may not know but I'm quite sure congressmen have particular funds earmarked for particular legislation. Cenk said that the money would be moved from a different part of the budget, so it had obviously been designated for something at some point.

  25. @blrohm
    Yes, some voted against it because they said it appropriated funds for abortions, which it obviously did not. If you don't like how the funds are being appropriated then why not vote against the appropriations bill and not the actual bill itself?

  26. @AABonine9200 That's the point, you can't determine that before hand. So its possible they were worried about that happening, and decided that it would be better not to pass the bill and have that situation become a possibility rather than pass the bill and then find out later government funds went to paying for abortions when they basically have no recourse.

  27. @AABonine9200 Because I made the point that its possible the funds would have gone to something else and those voting on this bill knew where the funds would be spent, and felt it was more worthy. You are assuming that it wasn't but you have openly admitted that you don't know where they came from. What I am saying is that without the information I can't make the judgement to say that they were wrong in making that decision.

  28. @blrohm
    Seriously? Then the government should never give foreign aid to any country. There is always a risk that funds will be used inappropiately, but that doesn't stop the government from appropriating money abroad.

  29. @blrohm
    Yes, I don't know where they came from and neither do you. But you're making up excuses for them, without any information to back them up. It's pure speculation. And again, why vote againt this bill, which doesn't appropriate funds, when you could just vote against the appropriations bill, which does allocate funds?

  30. Hey I'm fine with that. I'd prefer we take care of our own problems here and stop giving money to countries that dislike us. It's not our job to nation build around the world. I realize our foreign aid isn't a significant part of our budget but when you have a ridiculous amount of debt you have to cut somewhere, and most likely it needs to be across the board.

  31. @AABonine9200 And you are condemning them based on pure speculation as well, so why is your argument sound? I'm quite sure the appropriations bill wouldn't come up for a vote with a line item that would state, "$1 million abortions" to which they could merely cross it out or vote it down and move on. What is the point of passing a bill that you know you will not fund at a later date?

  32. @blrohm
    Well for one thing they haven't actually said why they didn't vote for it. And with a bill like this, don't you think if you had a valid excuse for voting against it, you'd make sure everyone knew it? At least voting for it wouldn't make you look like a complete d-bag. And anyways, all of the excuses aren't enough, in my opinion, for voting against something like this. None of the things you suggested is a good excuse in my opinion. Especially not the abortion one.

  33. @blrohm
    Well, I doubt that will be happening anytime soon. And I think hell would freeze over the day we stopped giving aid to Israel.

  34. @AABonine9200 well that's your opinion and your entitled to it. But in my opinion it's idiotic to vote for something so you don't, "look like a complete d-bag". That's the problem with the people in Washington is that everything they do is based on their re-election prospects.

  35. @AABonine9200 That could be true, I couldn't really say. I do have a question though, just out of curiousity what is the "lefts" issue with Israel? I'm pretty much indifferent on the subject, but Democrats in general are for the most part against any aid or help to Israel and I'm not sure I get the reason behind it. I also see that Republicans are 100% for Israel and have a pretty good grasp on their reasoning.

  36. @blrohm
    For one thing, Israel isn't exactly poor. Most of the aid we provide them is military in nature. And while I can understand the Middle East is a precarious place for Israel, they also use that aid against the Palestinians. In my opinion, Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and while groups like Hamas try to fight back, Israel has pretty much kicked their asses over the years, with much help from the US.

  37. @blrohm
    Well in my opinion, you should vote for it because it's the right thing to do. Which in turn doesn't make you look like a complete d-bag.

  38. @AABonine9200 Well all I'm saying is there could be a valid reason those who voted against, had for voting the way they did. I guess the other point I would make is that the video is obviously insinuating they were playing politics, so I would ask what politically did they have to gain by voting against this bill? If a majority of people on the face of it think it is the right thing to do, what could they possibly gain?

  39. @AABonine9200 That's the sense that I've gotten from most people who oppose Israel is that they feel they are taking Palestinian land. I guess as a follow up why is it that you feel the land is clearly Palestinian land?

  40. @blrohm
    But that is kind of my point as well. If you think a bill like this shouldn't pass because there is the smallest possibility that it could fund abortions, then someone needs to sort out their priorities. It's essentially putting party platform over what should be the right thing to do. And in my opinion, that's a problem. They can't see the forest for the trees.

  41. @AABonine9200 That get's back to the original point I made in that both parties play this exact game. Peter King made the point with the 1st responders bill. He said they had the votes and Weiner came to him and said we're going to suspend rules to get to the floor, and King told him he didnt have the votes for that. So Weiner said don't worry if it gets voted down then we'll put it back up, which they did and it passed. Both parties are corrupted and most of them have been in D.C. for too long.

  42. @blrohm
    As much as I'd love to get into a discussion about that with you, it's a bit off topic. And I really don't have time at the moment to delve into my research on Israel. I'm at work right now and have wasted enough time as it is. I'm sure we won't agree with each other anyways.

  43. @AABonine9200 for the most part I don't think any of them really care about what they say in public. Maybe originally, but eventually they all become the same and they play the political game and do whatever they have to do to keep their job.

  44. @blrohm
    Where did you get this information from though? Weiner did not ask to suspend the rules, Pallone did. And what you stated here was not exactly my point. My point was that people get so caught up in what their party stands for, they forget how to do the right thing. Ideology clouds their minds, in my opinion.

  45. @AABonine9200 That's fine I'm at work myself. The sense that I've gotten for the most part is that the opinion is that Israel's only claim to the land is the Bible or Old Testament rather, and so they don't believe in that text and disregard it.

  46. @AABonine9200 King himself stated this, with Weiner present. Pallone may have been there and on the official record but King described it as a couple of Democrats but headed by Weiner because I believe he co-sponsored the bill with King.

  47. @blrohm
    He did co-sponser the bill, but like I said, so did 113 other people. Is there a record of this conversation?

  48. @AABonine9200 Sean Hannity had both Anthony Weiner and Peter King on his show to talk about it. King said that was what happened, Weiner made no attempt to deny it he just started arguing about how Republicans are dispicable and don't care about the first responders.

  49. It's possible. It was obviously a while ago. I believe they may have also been on his television show as well.

  50. @AABonine9200 I'm with you on them letting ideology clouding their minds. But my main point was that a majority of the media, TYT included, likes to pretend that only happens on one side of the isle, just as Fox pretends it only happens on the opposite side. It happens on both sides and is equally detrimental.

  51. @blrohm
    Yes, there is a biased new media. MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right. Obviously that is why Cenk has a job working for MSNBC now. But at least MSNBC admits they have a bias, unlike Fox. I don't think it's a majority though, cable news is where it's most prevalent (as well as radio shows).

  52. @blrohm
    It would be helpful if you could find it, otherwise I have no way to verify that he actually said it.

  53. @AABonine9200 Well I think Fox admits their opinion people have a biased view point but there are also people who do straight news, the same I would assume for MSNBC. I've never heard MSNBC go above and beyond Fox in admitting to their slant. Radio shows are obviously biased but there are radio shows for both sides, Conservative talk radio and there are liberals on the radio. Typically the conservative talk radio does better for whatever reason.

  54. @AABonine9200 That who said it? Peter King? I want to say it was on his radio station because I think I recall hearing it while I was at work. Other than that I can't really help you out.

  55. @blrohm
    Well for one thing, MSNBC does not have a slogan like "Fair and Balanced." In their advertising (like the Lean Forward campaign) you can tell it is a left-leaning network.
    And I think it's difficult to make an argument that people who do the "straight" news on Fox are unbiased. Megyn Kelly is not unbiased no matter which way you try to turn it. And if you look at the differences between the interviews Baier did with Bush and Obama, the bias almost slaps you in the face.

  56. @AABonine9200 Exactly the same on MSNBC. Even their news people have a slant. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying they're the same, just in a different way. There is no argument to be made to actually suggest MSNBC is less bias in favor Democrats than Fox is for Republicans. Then you have to consider other news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post and the like, who actually do claim to be even handed which couldn't be further from the truth.

  57. @blrohm
    Yes, but MSNBC actually admits it has a bias. Fox does not, and to what end? I don't like to watch either network. But sometimes I think that Fox needs to tone down the crazy (although now that Glenn Beck is leaving that's a pretty good chunk of it right there).

  58. Fox does admit bias, as I said with their opinion people. They have what they call opinion people and actual news people, just as MSNBC does. MSNBC only claims it's time to "lean forward" when it comes to Chris Matthews, Crazy Larry, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and formerly Keith Olbermann.

  59. @AABonine9200 Plus as I said, the Washington Post and New York Times give no disclaimer. They just put news out there and pretend they have no slant or deny when questioned. Back in 2009, the Washington Post officially endorsed the Democratic candidate for Governor while writing slam pieces about the Republican candidate here in Virginia. I never knew it was their job to tell me how to vote.

  60. @blrohm
    Well I don't see MSNBC vehemently denying that its news programs are biased. Fox makes a sport out of doing that. Plus, as I said, it doesn't have a tag line like "Fair and Balanced."

  61. @blrohm
    I'm aware that the NYT and Washington Post tend to have a liberal slant. But as far as I'm aware, we were comparing MSNBC and Fox News, so why is that relevant?

  62. @AABonine9200 Ok, so that makes them better because they don't deny it. Would you honestly be ok with Fox News if it changed its tag line?

  63. @AABonine9200 I brought the New York Times and Washington Post into it previously and you focused in on Fox versus MSNBC. My original point was in regards to all news media, which the Times and Post are apart of.

  64. @blrohm
    Like I said, I don't really watch either one. But it just makes them seem dishonest when they do it so vehemently.

  65. @blrohm
    You brought the NYT and Washington Post into it after we had already been discussing Fox and MSNBC. I ignored it because I found it outside the scope of the discussion.

  66. @AABonine9200 That's true, but I think its also just as bad that MSNBC basically ignores the charge when someone makes it. They were fairly even until Olbermann got there and he just took them over to the left wing, while still claiming to be a journalist. I believe if you asked him now he would say he's a journalist. I typically dont watch either one, but when I do I try to flip back and forth, which is said that you have to do that to piece together a full story.

  67. @AABonine9200 You originally said News Media, brought up MSNBC and FOX and talk radio. In my first post I mentioned Fox & MSNBC and News radio, and then in my very next post I brought up NYT and the Post. I didn't realize there was a time limit.

  68. some people mis-use it yes, but what was the age of the child marriage? 12 year olds in America are having sex already. So a old man who never got a chance for a normal female will die alone just because there were no more girls of his age? There are a lot more girls in Asian continent than here. So, policing it is the way not to terminate it completely. OR there will be a lot of old people who were religious and virgins banging on heaven's doors asking, "what did i do to deserve no one?"

  69. im glad it dident pass, the gov is there to lead us not to run our live… yes it is not right to get married at such a young age, but that is the parents disision not the gov. who are we to tell ppl how to live there lives, we are only one country and were trying to decide for everyone else-in my opinion the gov is runed by selfish slobs who think there god- fuck them—-PS. plz thumbs up

  70. @mursinary666 Maybe you don't understand. They are trying to make it to were young girls are not forced into marriage. You say that who are we to tell people how to run their lives BUT these lives belong to the little girls not the parents. What you said is basicly ''I'm glad that a bill that would ban child marriage didn't pass. I mean these old men should have a right to marry and rape 10 year olds and we shouldn't stop them. The young girls shouldn't have a choice, only the parent."

  71. @forsakendemo Your argument doesn't make sense at all, and smells like crap. The old, lonely men can just marry, or buy, someone who is OF AGE>> why in the hell is it necessary to take a 12 year old?

  72. Wether the republicans have a good reason or not, they will always be against ANYTHING that restricts rights, and making an anti child marriage law would do that. I think the democrats will need to compromise so that rather than be "ANTI" it will be just restricting a certain age range.

  73. These were kids that were WAY underage.

    It's legal for 16 or 17 year olds to get married, not kids as young as the ones he got hitched to.

  74. Those poor elderly men who aren't able to satisfy their desires using the bodies of children.

    Those pooor poooooooor pedophiles!

    Who will cry for the poor child molesters? Forsaken Demogorgon will!

  75. No it isn't the parents decision

    They can't prostitute off their kids

    What kind of animal are you to believe that parents should be allowed to sell off little kids to rapey old men?

  76. Prejudice?

    It's called age of consent you idiot.

    People under 18 can marry people over 18 in most states but there has to be a cutoff

    A 8 year old can't be allowed to marry a 60 year old pervert.

    EVERY child marriage where people under 15 marry people over 15 happens because the parents either make the contract themselves or they talk their gullible kids into it by lying to them, guilting them or saying they'll go to hell if they don't.

    Only a scumbag supports marry kids off to old pervs

  77. You do know that even 14 year olds can marry in certain states

    You're defending a grown ass man marrying preteens

    Let me guess, you have to identify yourself to your neighbors whenever you move to a new neighborhood

    Either that or you haven't been caught yet

  78. 14 is reasonable? No, no it isn't. It's creepy. It's legal in some backwards state but it's still freaking creepy.

    Then again you probably wish you could bribe a mother to sell you her 14 or under daughter so you probably think it's the ideal

  79. I won't because I won't molest kids

    I know you have the strange idea that every adult wants to rape every kid they come across but that's just a small disgusting minority of the population

  80. Listen pedo, I tried to understand your position hoping that you didn't think 13 year old could actually give informed consent when marrying 60 year old freaks but you actually defended that with nonsense about that kind of relationship being based on love not just pedophilia

    I got sick and tired of hearing you try to justify pedophilia as if the people disgusted with grown ass men fucking little kids are the ones that are wrong not the child fuckers

    Im insulting you because you make me sick

  81. You know whats worse?

    Pervy fucks like you who gain a childs trust then molest them

    That is something that has to be interfered with so monsters like you can't rape kids.

    Protecting children from monsters like you that want to groom them is definitely a role of the cops

    Now go sit in chris hansons chair then get raped to death in prison. I think you're just mad that your crime made you the most hated man in the prison (hating pedo freaks like you is something every inmate can agree on)

  82. Yea, why can't anyone empathize with those poor poor child molesters. They just care about the victims about the rapists but molesters have feelings too!

    Whine harder predator.

  83. I keep insulting you because I don't like you. You're trying to justify acting on pedophilia. I made it clear several posts ago that I think pedohpiles that act on their sick urges and enjoy warping the minds of kids are the scum of the fucking earth. You're the one that wants to continue the conversation well past the point where I give a shit.

    Now get this straight pedo, I'm not interested in debating you, I got you to admit to your sick perverted agenda now I'd just like you to fuck off.

  84. Yea people take exception to disgusting freaks like you who groom kids so they can prey on them.

    Boo hoo your life sucks now that the neighbors know what kind of scum you are and you aren't allowed to have kids asked under the covers.

    Boo fucking hoo for you

  85. For kids (<18) then I have no problem with a 1/2 yr difference, if a guy has a girlfriend that's a few months or a year under then I wouldn't convict

    But you're the freak arguing that a 60 year old should be allowed to fuck a 14 yr old because if he cant then the pedo would be ronery that poor pedo!

    Now my "This is creepy" scale changes for adults

    If youre in your 20s and theres a 5 yr diff. no problem. 30s then anything over isn't weird…it is disgusting when ones 3 xs the age of the other

  86. He asked me what I believed and what was my creepout threshold

    My only opinion on what should be legal and illegal is people close in age around the age of consent. It's fucked up when a guys in a relationship and a one two etc month difference fucks it up

    That's VERY different from him wanting to let 60 year olds marry 14 year olds

  87. So you have a reading comprehension level lower than the elementary schoolers you molest

    I didnt say marriage between adults of different ages should be illegal

    You're trying to conflate me being creeped out by an anna nicole smith types golddigging old farts or an old businessman marrying a 20 year old

    That's TOTALLY legal and I'm fine just grossed out by it

    You're the advocate of going to kindergartens and elementary schools looking for wives

    Theyre completely different issues to nonpedos

  88. There was an 8 year old yemeni girl who died on her wedding night due to internal injuries related to sexual trauma at the hands of her 40 year old husband. some people should be jailed for following such retarted practices because a stupid book(quran) written by pedophiles told threm its okay to marry off their 7 year olds to be abused by a 63 year old man who needs to feel power over women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *