Matt Lauer should be fired for ENDORSING child rape...

[fossten]

NBC’s ‘Today’ Describes Statutory Rape Case as ‘A Love Against All Odds'
Posted by Scott Whitlock on May 26, 2006 - 16:10.

The Today show doesn’t like to judge. In the past, they have used the HBO series Big Love as a pretext to describe polygamy as the "next civil rights battle." They also had a serious piece on an "artist" who was promoting female public nudity. And now we have the lighter side of child rape. The May 26 edition of NBC’s Today featured an interview with Mary Kay LeTourneau. You may remember her as the women who was convicted in 1997 for having sex with her then 12-year-old student. She has since served a seven year prison sentence and is now married to the former victim, Vili Fualaau, 21. Here’s how Matt Lauer introduced the piece at 7:32AM EDT:

Lauer: "Most skeptics thought it could never last. Theirs was truly a love against all odds. He was a sixth grader in suburban Seattle. She was a star teacher and a married mother of four. What began as a mentorship quickly developed into a sexual affair."

Remember, we’re talking about child rape. This set the tone for the rest of the segment. The NBC host also noted that the couple has "pledged to stay faithful to one another." Ms. LeTourneau was married with four children at the time she began this illicit relationship. (A fact which NBC, to their credit, did mention.) So what exactly is the point of referencing this current vow of fidelity, other then to elicit sympathy for the couple’s relationship?

LeTourneau and Fualaau now have two daughters of their own. Lauer attempted to very gingerly broach the subject of talking about their relationship with the children:

Lauer: "I have a 5-year-old, Mary and Vili. And, you know, from time to time he asks me those questions, you know, how did you meet mommy and all things like that. What, what at their ages have you shared with them and what haven't you shared with them?"

This is, perhaps, Lauer’s non-judgmental way of wondering, "How do you explain that mommy, who is 23 years older then daddy, engaged in an illegal relationship with a child?" And this is the answer that he allowed LeTourneau to get away with:

LeTourneau "I was actually very honest with her. She already knew that her dad was a student of mine. I said, well, I had a hunch that, that he really liked me and- but I was trying to ignore him."

Did Lauer respond by saying, "How would you feel if a 40 year old male teacher began a sexual relationship with your young daughter? Would you accept such a ridiculous, cutesy answer?" No, he didn’t say that. In fact, here are some of the other softball questions that the veteran NBC journalist asked:

Lauer: "Do you think, Mary, in some ways, the fact that you two are still together after this year of marriage proves some of the naysayers wrong?"

Lauer: "Obviously besides the two adorable girls you have, what’s, what do you have most in common?"

Lauer: "...Now you have a year of marriage successfully behind you. And, and you have a lot in the future. What are your hopes and dreams from this point on?"

Lauer: "All couples fight, from time to time. What do you two fight about?"

The above question prompted an extremely insightful response:

Fualaau "She’s really bad at directions."

Matt Lauer used the phrase "child rape" exactly once. After that, his tough questioning amounted to this solitary query:

Lauer: "Let me just ask you, if someone is watching this interview right now, Mary, in particular, who is still just shaking their head about this relationship saying, you know what, there is just something wrong. What would you say to that person?"

There certainly is something wrong here. It’s NBC’s complete horror at the thought of being "judgmental." Raping a child? It’s just an alternative love story.

 

[MrWilson]

sometimes a brotha's just gotta endorse child rape

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Hrmm, two adults (he's 21 and shes older) are in love and married in an apparently happy relationship, getting interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer for a story on The Today show. I don't see where "child rape" comes into play here, nor any "endorsement" thereof by NBC, Matt Lauer et al. You must be imagining things....... again.

"Child rape", in the context of the NBC story, only pertains to the illegal act committed by the woman OVER 9 YEARS AGO when the one participant was a minor, and to which she was convicted and subsequently has served her time. The fact that they are now married could be considered as evidence that the term "rape" was even a misnomer in the first place: it'd be hard to imagine anyone who was truly violently "raped" against their will later falling in love with their attacker, let alone marrying them. Wierd? Yes. But that's what makes this country great, it takes all kinds to make the world. And it is exactly that "market" to which this NBC story is targeted.

But leave it to the thread starter, fueled by hate of the abnormal and other small-minded people like Scott Whitlock to take something completely out of context and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Get a life.

 

[fossten]

Hrmm, two adults (he's 21 and shes older) are in love and married in an apparently happy relationship, getting interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer for a story on The Today show. I don't see where "child rape" comes into play here, nor any "endorsement" thereof by NBC, Matt Lauer et al. You must be imagining things....... again.

"Child rape", in the context of the NBC story, only pertains to the illegal act committed by the woman OVER 9 YEARS AGO when the one participant was a minor, and to which she was convicted and subsequently has served her time. The fact that they are now married could be considered as evidence that the term "rape" was even a misnomer in the first place: it'd be hard to imagine anyone who was truly violently "raped" against their will later falling in love with their attacker, let alone marrying them. Wierd? Yes. But that's what makes this country great [WOW] , it takes all kinds to make the world. And it is exactly that "market" [like a child rape meat market?] to which this NBC story is targeted.

But leave it to the thread starter, fueled by hate of the abnormal and other small-minded people like Scott Whitlock to take something completely out of context and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Get a life.

So Johnny is pro-child rape. At least we know what you're in the "market" for.

I suppose if it had been a male teacher, 34 years old, and a 14-year-old girl, you'd be okay with that? And if they got married later on, you'd have no objection, nor would you question the manner in which their relationship started and OBVIOUSLY CONTINUED ILLEGALLY?

I have to say, Johnny, I've always thought you were somewhat of a hater, but now I KNOW that you're a sick wacko.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

So Johnny is pro-child rape. At least we know what you're in the "market" for.

I suppose if it had been a male teacher, 34 years old, and a 14-year-old girl, you'd be okay with that? And if they got married later on, you'd have no objection, nor would you question the manner in which their relationship started and OBVIOUSLY CONTINUED ILLEGALLY?

I have to say, Johnny, I've always thought you were somewhat of a hater, but now I KNOW that you're a sick wacko.

As always, as soon as I kick your soapbox out from under you, you resort to personal attacks and unfounded accusations. How predictable. How pathetic. I expected no less.

 

[Calabrio]

You tried to kick his soap box and it looks like you hurt your foot.

And it wasn't an "illegal act" is was a series of illegal acts with a minor. The entire story is disturbing. A mentally disturbed female teacher into teenage boys. A 14 year old boy getting a teacher pregnant. A woman with a husband and many children having sexual feelings for a boy she met when he was 13 and acting on them. There is nothing positive about this story. Nothing.

Lauer should not have endorsed it and there's something wrong with you support it as well.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You tried to kick his soap box and it looks like you hurt your foot.

My foot is just fine, thank you for your concern.

And it wasn't an "illegal act" is was a series of illegal acts with a minor. The entire story is disturbing. A mentally disturbed female teacher into teenage boys. A 14 year old boy getting a teacher pregnant. A woman with a husband and many children having sexual feelings for a boy she met when he was 13 and acting on them. There is nothing positive about this story. Nothing.

No disagreement there, this is a "disturbing" relationship (I used the term "wierd", but to each his own). However, the "story" was about what happened AFTER the conviction for child rape, not about the child rape case specifically. Look, she was convicted and paid her debt to society. What do you want to do now? Burn her at the stake? Is that WHAT JESUS WOULD DO???

Lauer should not have endorsed it and there's something wrong with you support it as well.

Please point out where in the H-E-L-L that I (or Lauer) stated "support" for their relationship or "endorsed" "child rape". You have just lumped yourself into the group of "hypocritical fictional imaginary dreamers" with fossten. Make yourself comfortable, if that is possible.

Story title: "A love against all odds"

Lets break that down.

"A love......" referring to their relationship; obviously they are in love, supported by the fact that they are currently BOTH adults, and currently, LEGALLY MARRIED.

"....against all odds" referring to their tainted past, which includes a child rape conviction where the offender served the time. That slate is now clean.

If Lauer is guilt of anything, it would be catering to the foul "Jerry Springer" appetite for nastiness that is sweeping the country. But NOT of "endorsing" child rape. Only a sick, twisted mind could extrapolate and make that kind of connection.

Now that I've kicked the soapbox out from under your hypocritical, self-rightous arse, how's that concrete taste?

 

[fossten]

Look, she was convicted and paid her debt to society. What do you want to do now? Burn her at the stake? Is that WHAT JESUS WOULD DO???

Your ignorance knows NO BOUNDS.

LOL you know nothing about what Jesus would do. The only remote comparison is the story of the woman at the well. But in that instance the woman repented of her sin and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

I've got news for you, Jesus isn't going to be merciful to people who die without repenting of their sins. God's LAW must be satisfied before his grace can take effect.

This woman not only continued to sin with the CHILD, she married him, for crying out loud. Now she continues to minimize her sin while condoning her own behavior. Hardly a sign of repentance.

Johnny, you're on the WRONG side of this issue. I'm actually amazed that you continue to defend the indefensible.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Your ignorance knows NO BOUNDS.

Your ignorance of FACTS is unparalleled:

This woman not only continued to sin with the CHILD, she married him, for crying out loud.

You may remember her as the women who was convicted in 1997 for having sex with her then 12-year-old student. She has since served a seven year prison sentence and is now married to the former victim, Vili Fualaau, 21.

Lets do the math.

12+7=19: He was NOT a child when she got out of jail.

...the fact that you two are still together after this year of marriage...

21-1=20: He was NOT a child when they got married.

There is nothing illegal about their marriage or current relationship. No sin has been committed since she got out of jail. Your argument has NO foundation in facts.

I've got news for you, Jesus isn't going to be merciful to people who die without repenting of their sins. God's LAW must be satisfied before his grace can take effect.

I've got news for you, when we die we answer to GOD, not Jesus. And any unrepented sins present when that couple dies is between that couple and GOD, not YOU or anyone else. YOU have no right to pass judgment on them, or pretend to be GOD's judge.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

I've got news for you, when we die we answer to GOD, not Jesus. And any unrepented sins present when that couple dies is between that couple and GOD, not YOU or anyone else. YOU have no right to pass judgment on them, or pretend to be GOD's judge.

*owned*

Your IGNORANCE knows no bounds. But keep it up, this is amusing.


Phl 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The fact that Jesus Christ is fully God is proven by the following
Bible passages:

1. EVERYTHING SAID ABOUT GOD IN THE O.T. IS ALSO SAID ABOUT JESUS
CHRIST IN THE N.T.

Title Jehovah God Jesus Christ
Lord of lords Ps. 136:3 Re. 19:16
Stone of stumbling Is. 8:13-15 1 Pe. 2:6-8
Creator Is. 44:24 Col. 1:16
Only Savior Is. 43:11 2 Ti. 1:10
King of kings Ps. 95:3 1 Ti. 6:14-15
Alpha and Omega Is. 44:6 Re. 1:7-18
Good Shepherd Is. 40:10-11 Jn. 10:11
Every knee bow Is. 45:23 Ph. 2:10-11
Judge Is. 24:20-21 He.
12:23 Col. 1:17; Jn. 5:22
Reigning Is. 24:23 Mt. 25:31

2. THE O.T. PROPHETS FORETOLD THE MESSIAH WOULD BE GOD (compare Is.
7:14 and Mt. 1:23; Is. 9:6; Jer. 23:5-6).

3. CHRIST WAS PROCLAIMED TO BE GOD AT HIS BIRTH (Mt. 1:23; Lk. 1:17,
32, 76; 2:11).

4. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD

a. He made plain statements and the Jews understood that He was
claiming to be God (Jn. 5:17-18, 23; 8:56-59; 10:30-33).

b. The "I Am" professions are professions of deity. Jehovah's name is
"I Am" (Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:13). First compare Jn. 8:58-59;
then see Jn. 6:35; 8:12, 249:5; 10:7, 11; 10:36; 11:25; 13:19; 14:6;
15:1; 18:8.

c. Christ's statements of His relationship with the Father are bold
claims of equality with God the Father. While He claimed submission
to God the Father (Jn. 6:38; 8:29, 42), He also claimed equality with
the Father (Jn. 5:21-23; 10:15, 30, 38; 14:9).

5. JESUS WAS WORSHIPPED AND HE ACCEPTED WORSHIP. If Jesus were not
God He could not receive worship. The Bible teaches that it is
idolatry and wickedness to worship any one or any thing other than
the one True and Living God (Ex. 20:3-5; 34:14; Is. 42:8; Matt.
4:10). Therefore, the fact that Jesus Christ accepted worship is
indisputable evidence that he is Almighty God. The elect angels
refuse to accept worship (Rev. 19:10). The Apostles also refused
worship (Acts 14:11-15). The Lord Jesus Christ, though, was
repeatedly worshipped by those who approached Him, and not once does
the Bible record that He corrected those who worshipped Him or that
he refused worship.

a. He was worshipped in His earthly ministry (Mt. 2:11; 8:2; 9:18;
14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; Mk. 5:6; Lk. 24:52; Jn. 9:38).

b. He will be worshipped in the future by every man and angel (Ph.
2:9-11; He. 1:8-9).

6. THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS SAID JESUS CHRIST IS GOD (Jn. 1:1; Ac.
20:28; 10:36; Ph. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 2:9; 1 Ti. 1:15-17; 3:16; 6:14-16;
He. 1:3; Tit. 2:13; 1 Jn. 3:16).

7. JESUS FORGIVES SINS, WHICH ONLY GOD CAN DO (Mt. 9:2-3; Lk. 7:48-49).

8. JESUS KNOWS MAN'S THOUGHTS (Mt. 9:4; Lk. 9:47), which is the
prerogative of God (1 Sa. 16:7; 1 Ki. 8:39; 1 Ch. 28:9; Ps. 7:9;
139:2; Pr. 17:3; Jer. 17:10).

97. JESUS IS CALLED "LORD" 663 TIMES IN THE N.T. "The Greek word
kurios is the equivalent of the Hebrew adoni and is so used by Jesus
in Mt. 22:43-45. The great use of kurios is as the divine title of
Jesus, the Christ. In this sense it occurs in the N.T. 663 times.
That the intent is to identify Jesus Christ with the O.T. Deity is
evident from Mt. 3:3; 12:8; 21:9 (Ps. 118:26); 22:43-45; Lk. 1:43;
Jn. 8:58; 14:8-10; 20:28; Ac. 9:5; 13:33 (Ps. 2)" (Scofield).

WHO SAYS JESUS CHRIST IS GOD?

David called Him God (Matt. 22:43-45).
Isaiah called Him God (Is. 7:14; 9:6).
Jeremiah called Him God (Jer. 23:5-6).
Matthew called Him God (Matt. 1:23).
Christ called Himself God (Jn. 5:17-18; 8:58-59; 10:30-33; Rev. 1:8).
The angels called Him God (Lk. 2:11).
Elizabeth called Him God (Lk. 1:42-43).
John called Him God (Jn. 1:1; 1 John 3:16; 5:20).
The blind man called Him God (Jn. 9:35-38).
Thomas called Him God (Jn. 20:28).
Peter called Him God (Acts 10:34-36).
Paul called Him God (Acts 20:28; Phil. 2:5-6; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:13).
God the Father called Him God (Heb. 1:8-9).

Hebrews 1:8-9 is quoted from Psalm 45, and in Psalm 45 it is obvious
that God the Father, Jehovah God, is speaking about the Son. God the
Father calls the Son God, and God the Son calls the Father God. This
is the mystery of the Trinity. Though we do not fully understand it,
we believe it because it is the teaching of the Scriptures.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD?

1. It means that He is able to sustain (Jn. 6:35).
2. It means that He is able to enlighten (Jn. 8:12).
3. It means that He is able to save (Jn. 10:9).
4. It means that He is able to care for and guide (Jn. 10:11).
5. It means that He is able to raise from the dead (Jn. 11:25).
6. It means that He is the one and only way, truth and life (Jn. 14:6).
7. It means that He is able to give spiritual growth (Jn. 15:1).

WHAT ABOUT VERSES WHICH SEEM TO SAY THAT JESUS IS LESS THAN THE FATHER?

Mark 13:32 is a key example of this: "But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father."

1. Christ might have been referring to the completeness of His union
with and submission to the Father.

"Our Saviour does not deny that the knowledge of that day and hour
dwells in fullest measure with the Son, but He mysteriously intimates
(in conformity with what is found to have been His practice on many
other occasions), that the Son Himself does but know because of His
oneness with the Father, the Fountain-head of all knowledge and of
all being, who had reserved that secret from the holy angels
themselves. He knows because the Father knows. He would not know, if
not (ei me) the Father knew" (John William Burgon, cited by Edward
Goulburn, John William Burgon: Late Dean of Chichester, 1892, II, pp.
171,72).

2. This verse is connected with the Lord's "kenosis" spoken of in
Philippians 2:7. In the incarnation, the Lord Jesus Christ "made
himself of no reputation" (Phil. 2:7). The Greek word is "kenoo,"
meaning also "to empty, to abase, to make of none effect" (Strongs).
"Kenosis is the Greek word which Paul used in describing the act of
Christ in emptying himself of His infinite powers and heavenly glory
out of place or too great to be used in the finite limitations and
local form of the human life into which He came. In his kenosis, the
Eternal Son dropped for the time being THE EXERCISE OF certain powers
and attributes, but He remained Himself. He who lays these aside, is
not Himself laid aside. He was still God the Son in holy will, divine
desire, righteous purpose, and immaculate love. The infinity of
powers not needed or suited within the narrow scope of a human life,
He laid aside. Jesus himself taught this doctrine before Paul did. He
referred more than once to His personal preexistence. Concerning his
kenosis he said: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (John
17:5). And again, What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up
where he was before? (John 6:62)" (John Champion, The Virgin's Son,
1924).

Modernists have used Philippians 2 in support of their view that
Christ is not God. But the Lord Jesus Christ in no sense gave up His
Deity in His incarnation. Philippians 2:5-8 says he was in the form
of God and took the form of a servant. It was merely the form that he
changed, not His Deity.

3. This verse is also connected with the Son's submission to the
Father. The Bible reveals the one God in three persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. All are God and are co-equal, but there is an order
within the Godhead, so that the Son submits to the Father. This is
what we see in Mark 13:32.

"The reference is perfectly clear when one bears in mind the purpose
of Mark's Gospel-to portray Jesus as the faithful Servant of Jehovah.
Christ says in John 15:15, The servant knoweth not what his lord
doeth. How significant that Mark, who presents Jesus as the perfect
Servant, should record this statement about the hour of His return as
King of kings and Lord of lords. (Matthew also makes a similar
statement in Matt. 24:36; likewise, Luke, in Acts 1:7). In the aspect
of His ministry as a Servant, our Lord made a voluntary surrender of
certain knowledge, in order that He might walk the walk of faith, and
thus be an object-lesson to all believers. While He ever remained the
eternal Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father; yet as a
Servant, He chose a limitation of His knowledge, bounded by the
Father's will" (Louis Talbot, Bible Questions Explained, p. 38).

*owned*

 

[Calabrio]

What was the point of Johnny doing that?? Why would he even attempted to debate or "correct" Fosten on issues related to theology? Did he possibly think that could go well?

And the fact that the kid was able to reach the age of consent whlie she was in jail doesn't take away from the fact she was screwing a 13 year old boy, while having a large family and husband as well.

When she got out of jail, what did you expect her to do? Her husband divorced her, the public was disgusted by her- where else would she go? She clung to the sick "love" with the aging little boy.

There's nothing noble or positive about this story. And the fact that she not only engaged in repeated statuatory rape, but got pregnant TWICE with a high school boy is a tragedy. Too bad sick jerks and "non-judgement" idiots aren't willing to condemn her.

 

[Iancusp]

its F'n sick she should burn in hell plust the B**** is crazy and brainwashed her husband
do u think u can be sane after gettin rapped when ur 12
do u think u kno wat love is when ur 12
this is F'n rediculous get this crap off of the site

for real tho i would hit off my 7th grade teacher if she let me

 

[fossten]

for real tho i would hit off my 7th grade teacher if she let me

You bring up an interesting point. I'm sure many of us in high school had a crush on one or more of our teachers. I can tell you that more than once I would have hit it with one of mine. In fact, in this latest case of the hot blonde teacher getting busted TWICE lately for this, everybody on the news was like, "Dang! Those boys are lucky! If only I'd had a hot teacher like that!" ~snicker snicker~

The problem is that boys that age don't have the emotional maturity to make decisions like 'should I make it with my teacher?' That's why there are age laws. It's not any different than a male teacher with a female student. These are CHILDREN who need to be protected from adults with HORRIBLE JUDGEMENT and their own emotional problems AT BEST.

Johnny, do you REALLY think that the jailbird had absolutely NO CONTACT with the boy for 6 or 7 years after she went in the can? Don't make me laugh. Any contact she had with him after her conviction would have been not only illegal, but morally reprehensible and would prove that she had no sense of remorse or intent to rehabilitate. The very fact that she married him proves that she didn't learn anything.

 

[TheDude]

I have two questions for both Fossten & Calabrio... She was convicted, sentenced and served her time. By our societies definition, she paid her debt of that crime right, correct? And, why is it illegal/wrong for her to marry the guy once he is an adult if he is able to make up his own mind as an adult.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, do you REALLY think that the jailbird had absolutely NO CONTACT with the boy for 6 or 7 years after she went in the can?

It would be safe to say that there were no conjugal visits allowed between her and the minor, otherwise the prison would be guilty of facilitating an illegal activity.

 

[TheDude]

You bring up an interesting point. I'm sure many of us in high school had a crush on one or more of our teachers. I can tell you that more than once I would have hit it with one of mine. In fact, in this latest case of the hot blonde teacher getting busted TWICE lately for this, everybody on the news was like, "Dang! Those boys are lucky! If only I'd had a hot teacher like that!" ~snicker snicker~

She is a good looking women, but it's a crying shame that she got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. Next time some sicko guy 'coerces' a twelve year old girl into a sexual relation and gets caught, his lawyer can ask for the same light sentence the hot teacher received (I forgot her name). The judge screwed up royally by setting the precedent on that case.

 

[fossten]

It would be safe to say that there were no conjugal visits allowed between her and the minor, otherwise the prison would be guilty of facilitating an illegal activity.

I didn't say conjugal visits, did I? I said NO CONTACT. What part of that don't you understand?

Your straw man is burning in the wind.

 

[fossten]

I have two questions for both Fossten & Calabrio... She was convicted, sentenced and served her time. By our societies definition, she paid her debt of that crime right, correct? And, why is it illegal/wrong for her to marry the guy once he is an adult if he is able to make up his own mind as an adult.

It's wrong because it's adultery. It's doubly wrong because the whole relationship was spawned illegally and immorally and has WITHOUT A DOUBT continued, i.e. not ended.

Do you REALLY think she has acted or is acting in a responsible way? Look what she did to her family? You think she should be PRAISED for this behavior? Because that's exactly what Lauer did, which, btw, IS the topic of this thread.

 

[Calabrio]

I have two questions for both Fossten & Calabrio... She was convicted, sentenced and served her time. By our societies definition, she paid her debt of that crime right, correct? And, why is it illegal/wrong for her to marry the guy once he is an adult if he is able to make up his own mind as an adult.

I don't remember ever addressing whether it was right or wrong for her to marry the kid. I don't think there is any legal argument that can be made keeping to adults apart. There might be, but I don't know it.

But letting her live her life is not the same as giving her our approval, or worse yet, celebrating her.

It would be safe to say that there were no conjugal visits allowed between her and the minor, otherwise the prison would be guilty of facilitating an illegal activity.

And she was convicted of that too. They were caught having sex in a van while she was on parole. He knocked her up then too.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

{EDIT} I didn't say conjugal visits, did I? I said NO CONTACT. What part of that don't you understand?

As is typical, you resort to personal attacks when you lose a debate. Get over it and grow up,[EDIT].

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Do you REALLY think she has acted or is acting in a responsible way? Look what she did to her family? You think she should be PRAISED for this behavior? Because that's exactly what Lauer did, which, btw, IS the topic of this thread.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lauer did NOT "praise" her during the story. True, he was not critical of her either, he merely asked a bunch of questions. But I suppose that "not being critical" in your [edit] mind is the same as "praising", which again is evidence of your twisted view of reality. Do you really think that the couple would grant an interview w/ the media unless they had the last say on what was aired?? If so, you are a bigger fool than I had thought, which is saying ALOT. Besides, the topic of this thread is "Matt lauer should be fired for ENDORSING child rape....", which you have repeatedly been proven WRONG. Give it up, or get prepared to be humiliated further.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I don't remember ever addressing whether it was right or wrong for her to marry the kid. I don't think there is any legal argument that can be made keeping to adults apart.

BINGO!! We have a WINNER!

But letting her live her life is not the same as giving her our approval, or worse yet, celebrating her.

Absolutely true. However, re-read the first post. There is NOTHING THERE that could be considered "praise" of her behavior, or their relationship, unless like I've mentioned above, you consider "PRAISE" to be anything short of burning her at the stake. Maybe there was some "praise" laid upon her actions in the actual aired story, which I haven't seen, but certainly nothing captured in the first post is "praise".

And she was convicted of that too. They were caught having sex in a van while she was on parole. He knocked her up then too.

And I'm not suprised, however if she was convicted and served time for it, then her slate has been cleaned of that violation too.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

its F'n sick she should burn in hell plust the B**** is crazy and brainwashed her husband
do u think u can be sane after gettin rapped when ur 12
do u think u kno wat love is when ur 12
this is F'n rediculous get this crap off of the site

:facesjump
Dude, don't pop a vein over this. God won't send you to hell for clicking on this thread, and it's not worth losing sleep over.

 

[MonsterMark]

I was 18 when a hot milfy teacher 'hit it' with me and I was in no way ready for that. I can't imagine 12 or 13.

Hummm, all those cable shows catching all the sick guys chasing after 14 year old girls in chat rooms and showing up at their houses....I wonder how many 'women' are out there chasing 14 year old boys?

 

[fossten]

I was 18 when a hot milfy teacher 'hit it' with me and I was in no way ready for that. I can't imagine 12 or 13.

Brag, brag, brag...