Lying Liberals and the webs they weaveFollow

As was I.

This was the case for me, and my birthday is in January so an exception had to be made.

It's not. If that was the case, then most graduating seniors would be 17. By far the most common age to start 9th grade is 14, with that student turning 15 sometime during the school year. That same student would be 15 starting in 10th grade, turning 16 sometime that year. Then 16 starting 11th grade, turning 17 sometime that year. Then finally 17 starting 12th grade, turning 18 sometime that year.

I can't speak for the Illinois school system, but here in California, the law requires that a child be 6 year old on or before Sept 1st to start the 1st grade. Which, barring skipping grades along the way, means that all students will be 14 year old on or before Sept 1st of their freshman year in high school. While I suppose some districts may start earlier, here in San Diego, the school year starts Sept 8th. Meaning it's impossible to be 13 as a freshman in High School (at least in the San Diego Unified School district). Again, I suppose it's possible that other states may have other age requirements, and or districts that start earlier, but in any case, someone starting high school at age 13 is very rare and is likely very brief.

We're stringing together an incredible number of "maybes" here. Maybe Hastert sexually assaulted a bunch of kids on his wrestling team. Maybe some of them were freshmen. Maybe one of them happened to be 13 at the time. Oh, and while I again can't speak for other areas, around here wrestling is a winter sport (tends to run from Dec to Mar if the various schedules are to be believed). So we have to add "got ahold of a kid before he joined the team" to the list of maybes. Or maybe it was someone not involved in wrestling? Maybe it was someone not even at the school? I mean we could speculate that he could have "maybe" sexually assaulted anyone, right?

Massive stretch. How about we just stick to what we know? And what we know is that he was paying hush money to someone and someone else's sister claimed after the fact that Hastert abused her brother when he was on the wrestling team in high school and Hastert was the coach. So maybe Individual A was also abused. Maybe not. Maybe it was a payoff for an illegitimate child he had years ago with a mistress? Maybe he owes some gambling debts to a guy named Vinnie. Maybe he's secretly involved with a CIA black bag operation and this was part of the money funneling scheme to teach sea monkeys how to assassinate enemy world leaders? Who knows, right? But hey, let's just leap right to child molester, cause.... why not?

Edited, Jun 24th 2015 7:50pm by gbaji

It is here. And since I was talking about here, you are wrong.

I was 13 for the entire stretch of 9th grade.

Yeah, but your kid isn't as representative of kids in Indiana with wrestling coaches as a middle aged guy half way across the country.

They both start with an I and therefore doesn't symbolize a mistake for me.

Were you trying to walk here?

And were you the exception, or the rule? I'm just pointing out that this is all pure speculation. As I mentioned earlier, we could speculate that he abused anyone at all, in or outside of the school he taught at. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't declare someone to have committed a specific offense without actual evidence that he committed that offense. Is that really too much to ask? "Sexually abused students under his care" isn't bad enough? I just don't get the need for hyperbole here.

Because you have no evidence that he is a child molester? Yeah, that's it.

I don't know if he was a child molester. My point is that neither do you. Is that really such a hard thing to acknowledge? You have no evidence that he has ever engaged in sexual activity with someone 13 years or younger. All I'm doing is pointing out this fact, but for you it's like pulling teeth to just say "You're right, I don't actually know that he did that".

You're going through a lot of effort to defend what was obviously a politically motivated cheap shot on your part. Heck. You basically shopped the story. How many times did you post some mention of Hastert before anyone responded? Two? Three times? Lol!

One. You.

Edited, Jun 30th 2015 7:56pm by lolgaxe

He brought it up once in May in another thread. At the time I think only Samira responded, and it was more about making a joke about Hastert. Then he brought it up again in early June in the same thread. Again, with minimal response. Then he responded to this thread about the NAACP woman lying about being black all these years with his whole "Well, on the Republican side, Hastert is a child molester" bit. Which is the first time I responded to it. Prior to that point (and frankly still today), I saw it as something we don't yet know all the facts about, so there's not a lot to discuss. My only issue wasn't with who it was, what party he was in (something apparently very important to Joph), but that based on the information we have, the label of "child molester" was not accurate.

That's it. As I said earlier, if he'd made the same statement about a prominent Democrat, I would have responded the exact same way. Of course, Joph would not have made that statement about a Democrat, but that speaks to his own partisan slant, not mine.