19 Kid Diddlings and Raping!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cadaverdog
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    • Aug 2007
    • 8955

    #31
    Originally posted by Satan
    And after that, they sent him to a "counselor" who himself turned out to be convicted pedophile.
    Unless you're talking about a different person Twona already mentioned that. Except he became a convicted pedophile later. He turned out to be one implies he already was one.
    Beware of Dog

    Comment

    • LoungeMachine
      DIAMOND STATUS
      • Jul 2004
      • 32555

      #32
      Originally posted by cadaverdog
      Where does it say anything about rape in the article? It says a minor forcibly fondled another minor. How old was the victim? I'd have to have a little more info before I joined the lynching party.


      You sick fuck.......
      Originally posted by Kristy
      Dude, what in the fuck is wrong with you? I'm full of hate and I do drugs.
      Originally posted by cadaverdog
      I posted under aliases and I jerk off with a sock. Anything else to add?

      Comment

      • Satan
        ROTH ARMY ELITE
        • Jan 2004
        • 6663

        #33
        Originally posted by LoungeMachine


        You sock fuck.......
        corrected that for ya....
        Eternally Under the Authority of Satan

        Originally posted by Sockfucker
        I've been in several mental institutions but not in Bakersfield.

        Comment

        • Seshmeister
          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

          • Oct 2003
          • 35157

          #34
          At the last US presidential election I found it completely bizarre that each candidate would start their introduction by boasting about how many kids they had and they all had lots and lots. 'My name is Mittens Romney and I have 6 kids not 5 like the last bozo'.

          Apart from the fact the world is clearly not short of people, it's also obviously true that if you are a high achieving lawyer become politician you aren't around very much to be a good parent to 1 or 2 sexcrements never mind 6 or 7.

          These people need to stop using the front hole...

          Comment

          • ZahZoo
            ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

            • Jan 2004
            • 8966

            #35
            It's somewhat interesting hearing reactions to this from conservative religious folks here in Arkansas where the Duggar family resides up in northwest Arkansas... They were pretty popular given their stance on teen courtship and anti-homosexuality. This situation really shattered their clean image where raising kids is concerned. Of course, it doesn't take much to get opinions to shift from well respected church folks to no-good trash in these parts.
            "If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”

            Comment

            • Terry
              TOASTMASTER GENERAL
              • Jan 2004
              • 11951

              #36
              Perhaps it was only a natural impulse for the Duggar patriarch to try and sweep this under the rug, in terms of helping his son avoid being swept up in the criminal justice system. Clearly such an action was hypocritical given their cult-like devotion to their own familial brand of Christianity and how they presented themselves to the world via their tv show. Obviously, it's not (or shouldn't be) a shock to anyone with half a brain that 'reality tv' shows are as heavily scripted as any fictional tv show out there. It might be shocking to, say, people who read supermarket tabloids and believe what's in them. Doubtless those same people would have swallowed the televised portrayal of the Duggars whole as fact.
              So, putting this issue of if Jim Bob Duggar did the right thing in soft-pedalling to the authorities what his son was doing to one side and waiting until the statute of limitations had elapsed before making an official statement to police (morally, obviously it wasn't the right thing to do), something just as astounding to me as the incidents themselves is how in the fuck the Duggars thought this would never come out.
              I mean, Jim Bob Duggar was involved in real estate and politics for years, long prior to his family going on tv. It's not like Jim Bob Duggar was some Amish butter-churner who had been geographically isolated from the way the world works. Also, the Duggar cult...er, 'clan'...had a substantial net worth prior to 2006. So it wasn't a case of them being a family of Honey Boo-Boos. The Duggars, at least Jim Bob one would think, weren't lacking in sophistication as to what putting yourselves out front on a television show could potentially mean in terms of land mines laying in wait to be exploded.
              Sadly, the Duggars courted the celebrity, and now they are reaping the whirlwind with the activities of their son finally being made public despite the substantial lengths Jim Bob and the family made to keep them secret. I just feel bad for the sisters Josh molested in the same way I feel bad for those kids on that awful Kate + 8 show, in that none of these kids ever had any real control or choice as to being on tv in the first place. Even if such a decision had been put to a ''family vote'' those kids were too young and naïve to understand the unintended consequences that could visit them down the line as the result of such a decision. Now the media will try and find out which sister(s) Josh molested, and in what manner, and all of that being publicly speculated on will be potentially just as traumatic as the incidents themselves.
              One hopes the children of the Duggar family really do have an all-encompassing sense of religion being the overriding basis of their lives, because they are honestly going to need that now...fucking home-schooled, money-grubbing, Jesus freak fame whores that they have all become.
              Scramby eggs and bacon.

              Comment

              • cadaverdog
                ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                • Aug 2007
                • 8955

                #37
                I agree it was morally wrong for the Duggars to protect their son from prosecution for fondling his sisters and possibly other girls but in doing so they were also protecting the girls he molested. I'm not saying that was their motivation but now the victims are going to have to relive the experience all over again. The unnamed victims outside the family (if their were any) are probably freaking out thinking their names will soon be made public too. Oprah and her people handled the situation respectfully. But the people that are behind outing Duggar now don't give a fuck about the victims. They just want to crucify the Duggars because they don't agree with their politics and lifestyle.
                Beware of Dog

                Comment

                • CVH Rulz
                  Head Fluffer
                  • Jun 2005
                  • 367

                  #38
                  Originally posted by cadaverdog
                  They just want to crucify the Duggars because they don't agree with their politics and lifestyle.
                  No, In Touch is a magazine. They want to sell magazines. End of story.

                  This isn't about politics just because one politician commented on it.

                  Comment

                  • CVH Rulz
                    Head Fluffer
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 367

                    #39
                    1. People are arguing that the girls were healed and now they have to relive this all over. No one knows if the girls are healed. These girls (all the kids) are brain washed and told how to think and what to think. They are home-schooled and not allowed on the Internet (except for school work) and not allowed to watch TV. Jana is 25 and never had a boyfriend (and she's the prettiest one). Maybe she was one of the victims and fucked for life. We don't know. They likely told them they need to forgive their brother and forget about it.

                    2. I think that a lot of these predators act on opportunity. He was probably not left alone with the girls ever again. And now that he will have occasion to be alone with his daughters those urges may resurface.

                    I have a cousin who was a molester in his teens and was supposedly clean for years (his minor convictions wiped from his record of course). Now he's in his 30's and we found out that a few years ago he molested my cousin's daughter. Why? Because he had an opportunity because she stayed home alone when her parents were working. I'm thinking she was about 12 or 13. So given the opportunity, he went right back to it.

                    3. People want to downplay this because it was some over the clothes fondling. But that's were it starts and will continue if they can get away with it. Who knows how far it would have gone. It was made to sound like he confessed to his father, but maybe one of the girls told on him.

                    Anyway, I have another cousin who like to touch his female cousins when we were young and into teenage years. Mostly just over the clothes. He'd come up behind them while swimming and rub their crotch, etc. Well, he never got in trouble at the time and then went on to become a full fledged molester, molesting his step-daughter and I believe a girlfriend's daughter. At least he then went to jail. Given the opportunity, these sickos will go as far as they can.

                    (Yeah, I have a lot of sickos in my family. Lots of molestation starting with an uncle and then the molested cousins went on to do it themselves.)
                    Last edited by CVH Rulz; 05-25-2015, 02:49 PM.

                    Comment

                    • cadaverdog
                      ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 8955

                      #40
                      Originally posted by CVH Rulz
                      No, In Touch is a magazine. They want to sell magazines. End of story.
                      That might be why In Touch did the story but who tipped them off to it? The people behind the outing doesn't necessarily mean the people who broke the news.
                      Beware of Dog

                      Comment

                      • Terry
                        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 11951

                        #41
                        Yeah, well, In Touch magazine may not have had any motivations in breaking the story beyond rummaging through the private lives of public figures to make a few bucks, and the people who initially reported the allegations to the production team of Oprah Winfrey's show may have also had motives that weren't altruistic.
                        None of that excuses what the family has done. That remains true regardless of their political, vocational and religious lifestyles. In terms of wanting to destroy the Duggars, I would argue that once the family decided to cover up what happened then went on to take money by representing themselves on national tv as something they weren't by not including the whole picture, this outcome was inevitable. After the close call they had with this situation being made known nationally in 2006 via their experience with Oprah Winfrey's show, you'd think they would have left well enough alone and literally counted their blessings that it wasn't found out then. But nope, they kept reaching for more fame and money despite the near brush 9 years ago with exactly what is happening now.
                        Chalk another one up to hubris. Doesn't the bible mention pride and greed as 2 of the 7 deadly sins? I guess Jim Bob was too busy shuttling Josh away to work on houses for 4 months as part of his "therapy" to have read that chapter of the Good Book.
                        Scramby eggs and bacon.

                        Comment

                        • TFM_Dale
                          ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 7943

                          #42
                          Originally posted by cadaverdog
                          I agree it was morally wrong for the Duggars to protect their son from prosecution for fondling his sisters and possibly other girls but in doing so they were also protecting the girls he molested. I'm not saying that was their motivation but now the victims are going to have to relive the experience all over again. The unnamed victims outside the family (if their were any) are probably freaking out thinking their names will soon be made public too. Oprah and her people handled the situation respectfully. But the people that are behind outing Duggar now don't give a fuck about the victims. They just want to crucify the Duggars because they don't agree with their politics and lifestyle.
                          A child molester should always be brought to justice, just because a victim represses memories and emotions it doesn't mean they are not there or haunting them. Prosecute and/or castrate the sick fucker and let the healing begin.

                          Comment

                          • twonabomber
                            formerly F A T
                            ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                            • Jan 2004
                            • 11189

                            #43
                            Ugh.



                            Writing In All Proper Case Takes Extra Time, Is Confusing To Read, And Is Completely Pointless.

                            Comment

                            • cadaverdog
                              ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                              • Aug 2007
                              • 8955

                              #44
                              Originally posted by TFM_Dale
                              A child molester should always be brought to justice, just because a victim represses memories and emotions it doesn't mean they are not there or haunting them. Prosecute and/or castrate the sick fucker and let the healing begin.
                              I agree with you but the parents would have to tell the cops some of their daughters had been molested by one of their sons and have it become public knowledge. They'd be having their own son arrested while destroying their daughters reputations at the same time. I wouldn't feel sorry for the boy but the sisters would having nothing to gain by it. Do you think they're happy everyone knows their brother fondled them now?
                              Beware of Dog

                              Comment

                              • Anonymous
                                Banned
                                • May 2004
                                • 12707

                                #45
                                Did the guy fondle or in any way abuse any minor he became an adult?

                                If so, it's very simple, but unfortunately, nobody seems to want to accept my idea of ripping paedophiles apart & feeding all the bits to stray dogs under their impaled heads.

                                If he only did it as a minor, he should've been punished then. Since he wasn't, the PARENTS should be punished TODAY exactly as he would've been punished back then.

                                It's all very simple. Why the fuck judges & other assorted piles of shit overcomplicate things? Oh, because they're paedos as well. Sorry, I forgot.

                                Cheers!

                                Comment

                                Working...