I don't like speaking for Shukster, but that has nothing to do with his reasoning. I can 100% guarantee you that this womans sexuality has nothing to do with his rationale.
(D)Katie Hill - NSFW
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Nope. But since they were posted on 'hook-up' forums, one would assume that she was equally aware of what was going on since she...um, 'participated.'
That is the his first response to me on this thread. He clearly implies that because she is participating in the threesomes (IE being bisexual) , that we should assume she knew her photos were on hook up sites.
Nope. But since they were posted on 'hook-up' forums, one would assume that she was equally aware of what was going on since she...um, 'participated.'
That is the his first response to me on this thread. He clearly implies that because she is participating in the threesomes (IE being bisexual) , that we should assume she knew her photos were on hook up sites.
Fair enough, but to my knowledge she hasn't claimed that this was done outside of her agreement and it isn't exactly a Scott Bakula level quantum leap to assume that she was ok with it. The couple were obviously both into this sort of thing so it would be more surprising than not for this to happen without her approval.
What am I supposedly saying about bisexuality? I would say the same thing if she were heterosexual, gay, or trans. This had everything to do with her behavior, not her sexual preferences.
DAMN, THIS GUY IS GOOD at channeling his inner Shuckster.
She could just as easily been heterosexual and involved in threesomes.
My point is that once the picture-taking went beyond a wife and husband taking photos in the privacy of their own home to a scenario that included her with other people in sex parties, orgies, threesomes, etc., the notion that these photos (reportedly hundreds of them) were 'private' becomes a little harder to believe. She was either incredibly naïve or is now playing everybody for fools.
Can we all just admire the fact that perfect Christian @UCFKnight85 is more upset that Katie Hill had a consensual relationship with a staffer than he is about the Catholic Church raping tens of thousands of children.
I'm fairly certain Lyndsey Graham has some embarrassing skeletons hanging over him. It's the only way to explain his complete 180 in behavior after one golf trip with DJT.
post like these really solidify how I know I'm on the right side. You're a disgusting piece of shit and a horrendous excuse for a Christian who has already shown more outrage over a consensual relationship between two adults than tens of thousands of children being raped by your Catholic Church.
I don't really care about what she did privately and don't think her relationship was even a problem, but the irony here is that she broke House rules that her very own party put in place to vilify men under the #MeToo movement. Like I said, if this were a man none of these lefties would give a shit if pictures were out there, mostly because this also happened to Joe Barton in 2017 and they vilified him because he's a male and had an R next to his name.
The real irony here is how many of our board 'righties' agree with me on this one.
However, I suspect if we were talking about some Congressional idiot who "was vilified" for taking photos of his junk "just because he's male and had an R next to his name" or a staunch 'Family Values' conservative (and diaper-fetishist) like David Vitter, we'd hear how 'those libs in Congress' always get a free pass.
just like yours talking about how katie hill made all those men look stupid?
what does her sex life have to do with that? talk about an archaic mindset
and I was referring to slut shaming
Last edited:
um sex with staffers is bad. #metoo
or did you overlook that part because this case is (D)ifferent?
point to where I defended that? I only posted her response in this thread to get her side's response. Sex with staffers is wrong, Revenge Porn(if proven) is awful and should have harsher penalties on the Federal level, & someone's sex life does not make them any less intelligent.
remind me if she voted yes on the resolution to make it agaisnt house rules to have sex with staffers? i mean it just wouldnt be wise to vote yes on that and then proceed to continue having sex with a staffer. some might call that stupid.
I feel like we need to remind some posters of current facts. Hill and the congressional staffer deny the relationship. Hill admits to consentual relationship with campaign aide before she was in congress.
I guess it’s too bad she resigned before an Ethics investigation could be done to flesh out the facts. I’m sure she would have been cleared*
You had to go with “flesh out.” Just couldn’t help yourself, could you?
