it's a wonder you don't electrocute yourself drooling on your keyboard :darwinsm:
MSEE. I know electricity.
it's a wonder you don't electrocute yourself drooling on your keyboard :darwinsm:
I don't believe they are. Interesting, eh?
Ah. Being gay is evidence for being a child molester.
So still no evidence then.
This entire thread is a big fail
This train wreck of a post needs some correction
The main difference, of course, is that because Nick leveled an unfounded criminal allegation against a public figure, it rises to the level of slander. Anna's statement does not because there is no evidence that supports Nick claim and reason to suspect that Nick is lying based on his personal prejudices.
MSEE. I know electricity.
Yeah, they were a history of the TOLers who thought it was okay for a twenty-something man to marry a girl in her early (because Mary) adolescence.
What a shame.
Spoken like a good Catholic girl.
Who?
Yes. If you drive through a light with a camera and as you move though, it changes to red. you get a ticket in the mail. If you believe you are innocent, you have to prove it. Most travelers pay it, since it is out of town.
Ah yes....real evidence. How many child molesters leave "real evidence" behind?
Fortunately, most people see the signs and don't wait for the "real evidence" before they make a judgment. It's a matter of common sense. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
What signs? Podophiles take where they can be close to children. He is nominated for Secretary of the Army. What signs do you see that makes you think he stocks children for sex?
Sent from my SM-G900T using TheologyOnline mobile app
And you consider that convincing evidence? I shutter to think what you would do to your wife is she got a look in her eyes when she saw a handsome man walking down the street.
Sent from my SM-G900T using TheologyOnline mobile app
This train wreck of a post needs some correction
The main difference, of course, is that because Nick leveled an unfounded criminal allegation against a public figure, it rises to the level of slander. Anna's statement does not because there is no evidence that supports Nick claim and reason to suspect that Nick is lying based on his personal prejudices.
There is no unfounded assumption. Nick, and others, firmly believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles. It is a position not supported by research into the topic. There is ample reason to suspect that Nick's accusation is based on his personal biases and not on actual facts given Nick's known opinions. As always, all Nick has to do prove that he is not lying is to present his proof that Fanning is a child molester.
Well, if anyone can dig the dirt on Fanning it would be mall cop extraordinaire & all round homosexuality fixated crank aCW!
So aCW, any truth to these allegations that Fanning has molested children?
:think: