RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 8258
Tomlinson isn't quite as innovative as he thinks, even among 'religious' people. A very similar argument took place, probably 1700 years ago as the Talmud was being written.

The writers (and this would be binding Jewish law among the observant) did see a difference between those born and those not yet born. Clearly the priority would be on saving those already born (or a mother and single fetus in the case they were discussing.). But that's not to say the fetus is not important. Its just that it would have taken on, in this type of case, the role of being a "pursuer."

So while many people oppose abortion, generally, they might say that there are circumstances where it is allowed....even required.

Of course we have difficult decisions to make all the time in all types of situations. Most people ("religious" or not) would say we are not required to unreasonably risk our lives to potentially save another (i.e. enter a burning building or dive into rough seas). Most people would argue that homicide in self defense is different than random killing. (and our laws reflect this)

I'm pro-choice, but I find Tomlinson (at least this presentation of it) to be somewhat naive, self-serving and insulting. And there are some people who are 'pro-life/anti abortion' who then do care about what happens to the child and it is not always about control of women. Situations are rarely black and white. And, GoU, I have at least one friend, who claims to be anti abortion (though I'm not convinced she would really want it outlawed completely) who acted just as you did, in a similar (in fact less criminal...not rape) situation.

The most thoughtful anti abortion Catholic I knew told me that if you want to eliminate abortion, the way to do it is to convince people it is inappropriate. Implementing extreme laws is unlikely to work and unlikely to be a successful approach in a country/society like the US.


That's a nice thoughtful view, Viewer. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
What we have here is a brainwashed cult following a brand. A cult that calls themselves "christian" but is bent ideologically toward hatred and ignorance, not Christ.


I would agree, except I suppose some wordsmithing.

Trump voters definitely exhibit cult mentality. Take it from someone who lives in San Francisco, where we are still dealing with the legacy of Jim Jones and the People's Temple.

Take it also from somebody who went -- as the Suicidal Tendencies song says -- to THEIR churches and went to THEIR institutional learning. The cult mentality isn't limited to just the white Evangeloids, either. The Calvinist/Reformed fascist-lites like the way Betsy DeVos grew up, the LDS, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, Orthodox Presbyterians, and mishmash hybrid all-purpose literal Christian fascists like Roy Moore...you think any of the more normal Evangelicals will go get their cousins?

No, conformity is central to their misery-based lifestyle choice. So, no hopes of that, any time soon. :? :sick: :problem:

There is something deathly, leathally wrong with white conservative Protestantism in America. I guess because a lot of them kind of infamously came over here, already half out of their minds with religious war violence, mass-murder, genocide, iconoclasm, religion-based discrimination towards each other, and owning other people & calling it freedom. :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
Tomlinson isn't quite as innovative as he thinks, even among 'religious' people. A very similar argument took place, probably 1700 years ago as the Talmud was being written.

The writers (and this would be binding Jewish law among the observant) did see a difference between those born and those not yet born. Clearly the priority would be on saving those already born (or a mother and single fetus in the case they were discussing.). But that's not to say the fetus is not important. Its just that it would have taken on, in this type of case, the role of being a "pursuer."

So while many people oppose abortion, generally, they might say that there are circumstances where it is allowed....even required.

Of course we have difficult decisions to make all the time in all types of situations. Most people ("religious" or not) would say we are not required to unreasonably risk our lives to potentially save another (i.e. enter a burning building or dive into rough seas). Most people would argue that homicide in self defense is different than random killing. (and our laws reflect this)

I'm pro-choice, but I find Tomlinson (at least this presentation of it) to be somewhat naive, self-serving and insulting. And there are some people who are 'pro-life/anti abortion' who then do care about what happens to the child and it is not always about control of women. Situations are rarely black and white. And, GoU, I have at least one friend, who claims to be anti abortion (though I'm not convinced she would really want it outlawed completely) who acted just as you did, in a similar (in fact less criminal...not rape) situation.

The most thoughtful anti abortion Catholic I knew told me that if you want to eliminate abortion, the way to do it is to convince people it is inappropriate. Implementing extreme laws is unlikely to work and unlikely to be a successful approach in a country/society like the US.


Even the most rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth forced-childbirth Catholics have more sense than their 81%er co-religionists. The only ones I had to deal with were the freaks with their bloody fetus pickets while doing clinic defense, years ago. Typically, really wigged-out males.

Even they are preferable to the typical run of the mill white Evangelical Trump-voting bigot. The other hardcore forced-childbirth Catholics I got to know happened to be a couple nuns, right at the point where I myself was very seriously considering a conversion to Episcopalianism so as to become a nun, myself. They were a lot more like the abuelitas on the street corner with their Watchtowers. They have their beliefs, they want you to join up, but don't get bent out of shape when told the word "no".

So-called "prolife" males can take a page from the nuns, in my experience. :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:45 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU

My opinion of the Clintons is just that. An opinion. It is the thing that most people base their vote on. We aren’t in court. I’m not calling for anyone to go to jail. You will notice that I call for investigations to uncover facts. I don’t make the assertion that my opinions are anything but opinions. I have been familiar with the Clintons since their days in Arkansas. People form opinions about public figures over time and I am no different. So it isn’t about what was said about her during any of her election attempts. People down here knew her and Bill for years.

Wow when it comes to Republicans or anything that looks bad for Republicans, you want nothing but facts, and you attack anything that's speculation. I guess you have two sets of rules. One for you, one for us.

This is what gets me about you guys. Everything about the Clintons past one blow job was speculation. Now, Bill Clinton was investigated, investigated, investigate. Ever heard of Kenneth Starr? He investigated for years, with all kinds of subpoena power, he investigated Whitewater and everything Clinton did during his time as Governor.

He found NOTHING. But you don't give a rat's ass, do you? You've heard the bullshit for so long, you believe it, facts be damned.

What you are a victim of is The Big Lie. Via WikI:

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

That's what the right did to the Clintons. All the stories about all the people they supposedly killed in Arkansas. None of that shit is true, but they said it so much people believe it.

And you try to falsely equate the Clintons with Trump, that they are all the same. The only thing that Clinton was accused of was a failed real-estate deal, Whitewater. Put Whitewater next to all the scams Trump pushed - things that are FACTUAL, not made up, like against the Clintons - and there's simply no way they can be equated.

Let's be clear, Joe. Clinton was investigated. He was cleared of everything but a blowjob.

So facts no longer matter to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
Wow when it comes to Republicans or anything that looks bad for Republicans, you want nothing but facts, and you attack anything that's speculation. I guess you have two sets of rules. One for you, one for us.

This is what gets me about you guys. Everything about the Clintons past one blow job was speculation. Now, Bill Clinton was investigated, investigated, investigate. Ever heard of Kenneth Starr? He investigated for years, with all kinds of subpoena power, he investigated Whitewater and everything Clinton did during his time as Governor.

He found NOTHING. But you don't give a rat's ass, do you? You've heard the bullshit for so long, you believe it, facts be damned.

What you are a victim of is The Big Lie. Via WikI:

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

That's what the right did to the Clintons. All the stories about all the people they supposedly killed in Arkansas. None of that shit is true, but they said it so much people believe it.

And you try to falsely equate the Clintons with Trump, that they are all the same. The only thing that Clinton was accused of was a failed real-estate deal, Whitewater. Put Whitewater next to all the scams Trump pushed - things that are FACTUAL, not made up, like against the Clintons - and there's simply no way they can be equated.

Let's be clear, Joe. Clinton was investigated. He was cleared of everything but a blowjob.

So facts no longer matter to you.



The German Big Lie theory explains why the left keeps repeating the mantra about wanting to control women's bodies.

and

Poor Bill Clinton, imagine that not one but three women falsely accused him of rape. Along with the dozens of rumors about all the women he sexually harassed. Luckily though he never harassed Monica because that intern was really harassing him. You people on the left have such a double standard.

BTW, is your opinion of Weinstein the same as it was of Bill C, prior to the investigation.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 8258
Gosh,,, not since the end of 1999 has Bill Clinton been a relevant factor in our national political debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:10 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650


The German Big Lie theory explains why the left keeps repeating the mantra about wanting to control women's bodies.

Nope. Truth. I was out there and heard the right when the camera's weren't around calling those women sluts and whores. I talked to those antis. That was their view.
Quote:
and

Poor Bill Clinton, imagine that not one but three women falsely accused him of rape. Along with the dozens of rumors about all the women he sexually harassed. Luckily though he never harassed Monica because that intern was really harassing him. You people on the left have such a double standard.

BTW, is your opinion of Weinstein the same as it was of Bill C, prior to the investigation.

Those accusations were all investigated by a special investigator. He found nothing.

And Weinstein has already admitted to HIS actions. But hey, let's remember that you dubbed the rape accusations against Trump as false.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
Nope. Truth. I was out there and heard the right when the camera's weren't around calling those women sluts and whores. I talked to those antis. That was their view.

Those accusations were all investigated by a special investigator. He found nothing.

And Weinstein has already admitted to HIS actions. But hey, let's remember that you dubbed the rape accusations against Trump as false.


Everytime one of you lefties defend Bill C and claim what he did to Monica wasn't sexual harassment you are setting back the women's movement and because of that making it more likely that another women will be harassed. Rich powerful man having sex at work with a powerless intern is the exact definition of what sexual harassment is.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:27 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

Everytime one of you lefties defend Bill C and claim what he did to Monica wasn't sexual harassment you are setting back the women's movement and because of that making it more likely that another women will be harassed. Rich powerful man having sex at work with a powerless intern is the exact definition of what sexual harassment is.

Nice bait and switch. I thought we were talking about rape of other women.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
What you are a victim of is The Big Lie. Via WikI:

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."


Yes, conservatives here and Nazis over there are very prone to propaganda.

Conservatives lie to themselves, require politicians and press that lie to them, lie to everyone in earshot, then call every body else the liars.

So no wonder they go around confused all day. :? :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550

Everytime one of you lefties defend Bill C and claim what he did to Monica wasn't sexual harassment you are setting back the women's movement and because of that making it more likely that another women will be harassed. Rich powerful man having sex at work with a powerless intern is the exact definition of what sexual harassment is.


That's not how sexual harassment works. Not even close.

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Wow when it comes to Republicans or anything that looks bad for Republicans, you want nothing but facts, and you attack anything that's speculation. I guess you have two sets of rules. One for you, one for us.

This is what gets me about you guys. Everything about the Clintons past one blow job was speculation. Now, Bill Clinton was investigated, investigated, investigate. Ever heard of Kenneth Starr? He investigated for years, with all kinds of subpoena power, he investigated Whitewater and everything Clinton did during his time as Governor.

He found NOTHING. But you don't give a rat's ass, do you? You've heard the bullshit for so long, you believe it, facts be damned.

What you are a victim of is The Big Lie. Via WikI:

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

That's what the right did to the Clintons. All the stories about all the people they supposedly killed in Arkansas. None of that shit is true, but they said it so much people believe it.

And you try to falsely equate the Clintons with Trump, that they are all the same. The only thing that Clinton was accused of was a failed real-estate deal, Whitewater. Put Whitewater next to all the scams Trump pushed - things that are FACTUAL, not made up, like against the Clintons - and there's simply no way they can be equated.

Let's be clear, Joe. Clinton was investigated. He was cleared of everything but a blowjob.

So facts no longer matter to you.


GoU.

I believe if you check back you will see that I never demanded proof from you or anyone else to support sexual misconduct allegations about Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby or anyone else. I pretty much believed that when several women come forward alleging sexual misconduct and it occurs over a period of years, that there is a pattern of conduct. In most of these cases, it is a he said / she said case which is difficult to prosecute. So I did not apply a double standard to these men when it comes to alleged sexual misconduct. It was the same standard and it was consistent. I am inclined to believe the accusers especially when there is more than one and where the conduct is spread over time. I have been around enough men with power and money to know the type when I see it. And I don't find it disqualifying when interest groups come forward to help support these women against their accusers. Most are not made of money and they have to hire attorneys and all kinds of other people to protect their reputations against the attacks that always come.

As to other matters, when we are talking about taking some official action against someone that could cost them a job or send them to jail or remove them from office, etc, etc, etc. I have always held judgement pending the result of investigation. Feel free to check me on this but you won't see me condemning Democrats or Republicans accused of wrongdoing until the facts have been established by a complete thorough and unbiased investigation. As you know I like independent investigations and think we need more of them.

As for Hillary, Bill and Donald; when I am asked to cast a vote for someone, I like everybody else, base my vote on my OPINION of that person, their character, their capabilities and what they claim to support. You don't get to litigate all those factors beyond a reasonable doubt. You are casting a vote and not going to make a case in court. You will get no argument from me in support of Trump. You know that. And I hold a different view/opinion of Bill and Hillary than many on this board and you know that as well. I never claimed to have proof on any of the three. It is simply what I have come to believe after watching the Clintons for the past 30 years. It didn't take that long for me to form an opinion of Trump. All of this you already know because I said it way back in the primary season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:59 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU.

I believe if you check back you will see that I never demanded proof from you or anyone else to support sexual misconduct allegations about Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby or anyone else. I pretty much believed that when several women come forward alleging sexual misconduct and it occurs over a period of years, that there is a pattern of conduct. In most of these cases, it is a he said / she said case which is difficult to prosecute. So I did not apply a double standard to these men when it comes to alleged sexual misconduct. It was the same standard and it was consistent. I am inclined to believe the accusers especially when there is more than one and where the conduct is spread over time. I have been around enough men with power and money to know the type when I see it. And I don't find it disqualifying when interest groups come forward to help support these women against their accusers. Most are not made of money and they have to hire attorneys and all kinds of other people to protect their reputations against the attacks that always come.

As to other matters, when we are talking about taking some official action against someone that could cost them a job or send them to jail or remove them from office, etc, etc, etc. I have always held judgement pending the result of investigation. Feel free to check me on this but you won't see me condemning Democrats or Republicans accused of wrongdoing until the facts have been established by a complete thorough and unbiased investigation. As you know I like independent investigations and think we need more of them.

As for Hillary, Bill and Donald; when I am asked to cast a vote for someone, I like everybody else, base my vote on my OPINION of that person, their character, their capabilities and what they claim to support. You don't get to litigate all those factors beyond a reasonable doubt. You are casting a vote and not going to make a case in court. You will get no argument from me in support of Trump. You know that. And I hold a different view/opinion of Bill and Hillary than many on this board and you know that as well. I never claimed to have proof on any of the three. It is simply what I have come to believe after watching the Clintons for the past 30 years. It didn't take that long for me to form an opinion of Trump. All of this you already know because I said it way back in the primary season.

So, what were the results of the five-year-long independent investigation of the Clintons?

There was a whole industry paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife, making up lies like the Clintons murdering scores of people, like Vince Foster. They made up everything about them. THAT'S what you say you "know" about the Clintons.

Bill Clinton was a philanderer, that is for certain. Nothing else is. I'm quite sure you've been a supporter of Newt Gingrich. If I'd mentioned HIS actions concerning women, you'd bring up equivilancy, that there are Democrats doing the same thing. Yet you sure treat the same cases differently.

On the Clintons, you and glen have no facts. You just have opinions, and NONE of those opinions are based upon FACTS.

That's the difference between us. My opinions are based upon facts. I voted for Hillary for many reasons. For one thing, she was a hell of a good Senator. She earned the respect of her Republican colleagues when she was in the Senate, and they had lots of praise for her at that time. She was a great Secretary of State. When she was given a job, she did well at it. But the right has this whole smear machine, and as a conservative, you should champion fair treatment for all, and you should condemn these organizations that exist just to falsely destroy people's reputations.

My issues with Trump aren't based upon false smears. They are based upon facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:52 am
Posts: 419
Quote:
What if you changed the premise slightly. Assume the same question but maybe instead of embryos you had a 85 year old person in a hospital bed. Tough choice but I would probably still pick the child. Doesn't mean that the 85 year old isn't alive.


Joe Memphis,

But of course you'd save the child.

The old man has willed you his estate and you can't just save no one, so child it is.

This is what happen when you try to make a commodity of life.

This is also why there is no such thing as a self made man.

This is why we are having so much trouble teasing apart humanity and profit motive.

Life is.

It is different from not life.
It is not rational, but it 'works.'
It tends to not work the more rational it gets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:02 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381

Everytime one of you lefties defend Bill C and claim what he did to Monica wasn't sexual harassment you are setting back the women's movement and because of that making it more likely that another women will be harassed. Rich powerful man having sex at work with a powerless intern is the exact definition of what sexual harassment is.


You do understand that sexual harassment is one thing and sex between consenting adults is another, right glen? Now...many of us are aware of certain schools of thought regarding heterosexual sex that suggest that there is no such thing as consensual heterosexual sex, and that every act of sex between a man and a woman is coerced. Y'know...the Andrea Dworkin school of thought. I haven't pictured you as a Dworkin acolyte, glen. Or that you even know who Andrea Dworkin was. But lately you have surprised me with your attitudes about sex with Presidents. Y'know...how every Trump accuser is a lying ass whore while every Clinton accuser is the virgin Willey.

A chill still runs up the back of my neck when I think about that thing Monica did with the cigar.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
So, what were the results of the five-year-long independent investigation of the Clintons?

There was a whole industry paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife, making up lies like the Clintons murdering scores of people, like Vince Foster. They made up everything about them. THAT'S what you say you "know" about the Clintons.

Bill Clinton was a philanderer, that is for certain. Nothing else is. I'm quite sure you've been a supporter of Newt Gingrich. If I'd mentioned HIS actions concerning women, you'd bring up equivilancy, that there are Democrats doing the same thing. Yet you sure treat the same cases differently.

On the Clintons, you and glen have no facts. You just have opinions, and NONE of those opinions are based upon FACTS.

That's the difference between us. My opinions are based upon facts. I voted for Hillary for many reasons. For one thing, she was a hell of a good Senator. She earned the respect of her Republican colleagues when she was in the Senate, and they had lots of praise for her at that time. She was a great Secretary of State. When she was given a job, she did well at it. But the right has this whole smear machine, and as a conservative, you should champion fair treatment for all, and you should condemn these organizations that exist just to falsely destroy people's reputations.

My issues with Trump aren't based upon false smears. They are based upon facts.


GoU,

As far as the Starr Investigation, Clinton was indicted for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. As you know he was acquitted in the Senate. No charges were filed for any other conduct either because they were beyond the scope of the investigation or there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. To my knowledge the Paula Jones issue was handled in a civil court proceeding and was settled by President Clinton. He didn't admit guilt. That isn't the same as being cleared if you are interested in sticking to the facts. As far as the other two women were concerned, charges were not brought due to insufficient evidence. That also is not the same as being cleared. I would bet that it isn't uncommon in these type of cases where the evidence is conflicting and there are no witnesses except the two people involved. Perhaps that is a complete exoneration to you but it isn't the same. John Gotti had charges dropped against him more than once due to lack of evidence. Didn't mean he wasn't guilty. As far as the sexual allegations towards these men, I treated them and I view them equally. I view their accusers equally. I make no excuses for either of them. It's the same behavior. Being an abuser is being an abuser regardless of party affiliation.

The difference between us is that you often think your opinions ARE facts. I know the difference between the two. If you want to have consistent standards that apply to both Republican and Democratic administrations in order to protect the interests of all citizens from political machinations, then I am 100% on board with that. But if you are going to argue that one side is to be trusted and the other side is to be investigated, you are not talking about fairness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:25 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381
WTF does how bill Clinton behaves have to do with how Hillary Clinton behaves? This is just a continuing torrent of watery shit coming out of Joe, still pitching his "there's no difference" BS.

And why Joe puts a couple hundred times the effort into pissing and moaning about a guy who hasn't been president in over 15 years...as opposed to expressing anything worse than "he's an idiot" regarding the current occupant...well the just pretty much tells the whole story to this social scientist.

Meantime, Joe sees himself as the forum arbiter of fairness. Irony rears its fat, ugly, zit-covered head.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:50 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381
OK....now the issue of "powerless intern" Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky has been open and honest about her interlude with Bill Clinton. She has taken responsibility for her poor choices and spoken bravely in an attempt to help young women make better choices. Glen specifically mentions her along with comments about three women who he says have accused Clinton of harassment at best, sexual assault at worst. Well none of them is a helpless intern. And in fact, Kushner stooge, FOX NEWS contributor Kathleen Willey has not only accused Bill of sexual assault, but also of murdering one of her husbands. :roll: I'm not clear in which of them, though.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:25 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

As far as the Starr Investigation, Clinton was indicted for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. As you know he was acquitted in the Senate. No charges were filed for any other conduct either because they were beyond the scope of the investigation or there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. To my knowledge the Paula Jones issue was handled in a civil court proceeding and was settled by President Clinton. He didn't admit guilt. That isn't the same as being cleared if you are interested in sticking to the facts. As far as the other two women were concerned, charges were not brought due to insufficient evidence. That also is not the same as being cleared. I would bet that it isn't uncommon in these type of cases where the evidence is conflicting and there are no witnesses except the two people involved. Perhaps that is a complete exoneration to you but it isn't the same. John Gotti had charges dropped against him more than once due to lack of evidence. Didn't mean he wasn't guilty. As far as the sexual allegations towards these men, I treated them and I view them equally. I view their accusers equally. I make no excuses for either of them. It's the same behavior. Being an abuser is being an abuser regardless of party affiliation.

The difference between us is that you often think your opinions ARE facts. I know the difference between the two. If you want to have consistent standards that apply to both Republican and Democratic administrations in order to protect the interests of all citizens from political machinations, then I am 100% on board with that. But if you are going to argue that one side is to be trusted and the other side is to be investigated, you are not talking about fairness.

Nope. I said my opinions are based upon FACTS. Let's be clear: You mentioned Trump, Weinstein and Cosby. Both Trump and Weinstein, in different ways, have admitted to being predators. Hell, Trump bragged about being able to go into his Miss Teen USA dressing room - with girls as young as fourteen - and oogle the girls naked, because he's the owner of the pageant.

As to Cosby, I have my feelings, based upon the testimony, and the fact that Cosby admitted to drugging the women, but he hasn't been convicted yet. But again the FACT - Cosby's admission that he drugged women - weighs heavily in my views. But I was never a Cosby fanboy, like you were. You sure liked him when he was running down other black people.

Weinstein has publicly admitted to doing terrible things to bed women.

In Clinton's case, one of the women testified earlier under oath that Clinton never touched her. So, that hurts her credibility. And all these women were recruited by folks like Ann Coulter, and they received money from them.

As to Monica, yes, what Clinton did was completely wrong. But Lewenski was more than a willing participant. She WANTED to have a relationship with a President. Having a sexual relationship with an intern is completely wrong, but it's not rape when the woman is of age and more than a willing participant. Clinton was a serial philanderer, but I see no compelling evidence that he was a rapist. Those two DO NOT go together.

And again, after five years of deep investigation, the only thing Ken Starr could find on Clinton was that he lied to cover up an affair.

So, you have your investigation you demand. But since you don't believe the results of the investigation, what does it matter? If the IRS is completely investigated for 10 years, and they find nothing, you won't believe that either, will you?

Now let's talk about Newt Gingrich. I bet you would have voted for him four years ago, had he prevailed in the primaries. He was also a serial philanderer, who even took papers for his wife to sign when she was in the hospital for cancer, so he could marry another woman. And while Speaker, he was married by was having an affair with his now-current wife, who was a lobbyist at the time.

So why don't you hate his guts like you hate Clintons? Everything I said about Gingrich is a verifiable fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Nope. I said my opinions are based upon FACTS. Let's be clear: You mentioned Trump, Weinstein and Cosby. Both Trump and Weinstein, in different ways, have admitted to being predators. Hell, Trump bragged about being able to go into his Miss Teen USA dressing room - with girls as young as fourteen - and oogle the girls naked, because he's the owner of the pageant.

As to Cosby, I have my feelings, based upon the testimony, and the fact that Cosby admitted to drugging the women, but he hasn't been convicted yet. But again the FACT - Cosby's admission that he drugged women - weighs heavily in my views. But I was never a Cosby fanboy, like you were. You sure liked him when he was running down other black people.

Weinstein has publicly admitted to doing terrible things to bed women.

In Clinton's case, one of the women testified earlier under oath that Clinton never touched her. So, that hurts her credibility. And all these women were recruited by folks like Ann Coulter, and they received money from them.

As to Monica, yes, what Clinton did was completely wrong. But Lewenski was more than a willing participant. She WANTED to have a relationship with a President. Having a sexual relationship with an intern is completely wrong, but it's not rape when the woman is of age and more than a willing participant. Clinton was a serial philanderer, but I see no compelling evidence that he was a rapist. Those two DO NOT go together.

And again, after five years of deep investigation, the only thing Ken Starr could find on Clinton was that he lied to cover up an affair.

So, you have your investigation you demand. But since you don't believe the results of the investigation, what does it matter? If the IRS is completely investigated for 10 years, and they find nothing, you won't believe that either, will you?

Now let's talk about Newt Gingrich. I bet you would have voted for him four years ago, had he prevailed in the primaries. He was also a serial philanderer, who even took papers for his wife to sign when she was in the hospital for cancer, so he could marry another woman. And while Speaker, he was married by was having an affair with his now-current wife, who was a lobbyist at the time.

So why don't you hate his guts like you hate Clintons? Everything I said about Gingrich is a verifiable fact.


GoU,

You can base your opinion on facts but that doesn't make your opinion a fact. The difference is that you tend to base your opinion only on those facts that support the conclusion you like. You leave out all the facts that don't support your argument. For instance, nobody "cleared" Clinton. The prosecutor elected not to charge him because he lacked the evidence to secure a conviction. In criminal court the prosecutors decision not to bring charges certainly doesn't mean you are guilty and it isn't proof of innocence. You have the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings but that doesn't mean you are actually innocent. There are criminal cases every day in this country where prosecutors decide not to bring charges against people they believe are guilty because they lack the evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. Further in cases of sexual abuse and harassment these cases are difficult to prove in court. Often there are no witnesses other than the abuser and the victim. In cases where the accused is wealthy or powerful, the victim often doesn't come forward immediately or makes conflicting statements because they are intimidated or their careers or social standing is at stake. Many of Weinstein's accusers were silent for years for these reasons. I guess they believe they are only going to get attacked and ridiculed and who could blame them? Since you ask, I accept the FACT that the prosecutor didn't find sufficient evidence to bring charges.

But what do we know of these men. What are the facts beyond question? 1. They are serial philanders. Not a crime. Not to be admired either. 2. They are rich, powerful men who are used to playing by their own rules and getting pretty much what they want. 3. The have big egos and they think they are god's gift to women. 4. They lie. So you what us to believe Clinton's accusers are lying and that everybody else's accusers are rock solid. The joke in Arkansas was that Bill Clinton would drop his drawers for the Easter Bunny. So you can't believe that a man who though every woman wanted him wouldn't put his hand on or force himself on someone. And keep in mind. It wasn't one woman, but three. And it was three over a period of years. So I don't see much difference between these men other than you voted for one of them twice and choose to ignore everything else that argues against the conclusion you want to believe. You believe the worse of these other men and dismiss the same behavior in your guy. In the south we call that putting lipstick on a pig. You can dress him up and put makeup on him and tell yourself he's a prince. But in real life he is still a pig just like all the other pigs in the barnyard.

As to Trump's confession. What does it mean? I don't know. Maybe it's factual. Maybe it's a guy with an ego wagging his dick in order to impress. Have you ever been in a locker room or on a construction site? I heard all kinds of shit like that on jobsites and most of it wasn't true. We learned from Bill Clinton himself that men lie about sex. Donald did it in bus on a live mike and Bill did it on national television.

So why is this important? Well folks around here like to accuse folks who didn't support Hillary of supporting a misogynistic pig like Trump. Even those folks who voted for someone other than Trump or didn't vote at all are guilty and are out to destroy the republic. And yet many of these same folks hurling those ridiculous remarks also voted for Clinton. Some voted for him twice. Those same folks were more than happy that they trotted him out at the 2016 convention. The comparison is current and it is relevant.

Lastly, I don't have any respect for the Clintons and certainly don't trust them but I don't "hate" them much less "hate their guts". I don't respect or trust Trump either. Hate implies something personal to me. I have no personal relationship with any of these people and they have done nothing to me personally. I wasn't raised to hate and can't say that I feel that strongly against anyone. Hate is a strong emotion and often tends to be irrational IMO. Since you brought it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:00 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

You can base your opinion on facts but that doesn't make your opinion a fact. The difference is that you tend to base your opinion only on those facts that support the conclusion you like.

And your opinions are not based upon facts at all. Look, I based my opinions on fact, not fantasy. I do not, for instance, have the opinion that Paul Ryan is a child molester, even tough I don't like his politics. If I read on a blog such an accusation with no facts backing it up, I won't start believe it.

Richard Mellon Scaife spend a ton of money trucking in rumors and innuendo in Arkansas, with accusations like the Clintons had scores of people murdered, culminating in Vince Foster.

None of it was based upon facts. Well, you hear all these rumors, and you believe them. Fine. But they aren't factual. Ken Starr investigated for five years, and ALL HE FOUND WAS CLINTON LYING ABOUT SEX. He found nothing else. Period.

But obviously, even though you want all Democrats under constant investigation for any and every false accusation that comes up, there's obviously no point at which you won't believe they aren't guilty. If the investigation found nothing, then the "crime" was just well-covered-up.

Why investigate if you're never going to accept the results of that investigation if it didn't uncover anything?


Quote:
You leave out all the facts that don't support your argument. For instance, nobody "cleared" Clinton. The prosecutor elected not to charge him because he lacked the evidence to secure a conviction. In criminal court the prosecutors decision not to bring charges certainly doesn't mean you are guilty and it isn't proof of innocence. You have the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings but that doesn't mean you are actually innocent.

So, the Clintons are always guilty of everything in your book, no matter what.

Got it.
Quote:
There are criminal cases every day in this country where prosecutors decide not to bring charges against people they believe are guilty because they lack the evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. Further in cases of sexual abuse and harassment these cases are difficult to prove in court. Often there are no witnesses other than the abuser and the victim. In cases where the accused is wealthy or powerful, the victim often doesn't come forward immediately or makes conflicting statements because they are intimidated or their careers or social standing is at stake. Many of Weinstein's accusers were silent for years for these reasons. I guess they believe they are only going to get attacked and ridiculed and who could blame them? Since you ask, I accept the FACT that the prosecutor didn't find sufficient evidence to bring charges.

There was no investigation on Weinstein. You're trying to muddy the waters.
Quote:
But what do we know of these men. What are the facts beyond question? 1. They are serial philanders. Not a crime. Not to be admired either. 2. They are rich, powerful men who are used to playing by their own rules and getting pretty much what they want.

Again, FACTS. Clinton was NOT rich when he supposedly raped these women. Far from it. His life was NOT one where he was "used to playing by his own rules and getting pretty much what he wanted. His life was far different from the others. He was Governor of a podunk state, but that doesn't convey unlimited power, either. Yes, he's rich now, but he sure wasn't then. Facts matter to me.
Quote:
3. The have big egos and they think they are god's gift to women.

I would agree with your first part being factual, but your second part is an opinion. Leave it out if you're just putting down facts.
Quote:
4. They lie. So you what us to believe Clinton's accusers are lying and that everybody else's accusers are rock solid.

Again, incorrect. In the other two cases, we have the men publicly admitting to doing such things.

And everyone lies. It's what makes us human.
Quote:
The joke in Arkansas was that Bill Clinton would drop his drawers for the Easter Bunny. So you can't believe that a man who though every woman wanted him wouldn't put his hand on or force himself on someone. And keep in mind. It wasn't one woman, but three. And it was three over a period of years.

The women on Clinton were dredged up with Richard Mellon Scaife's money. The accusations weren't over years, they were at the same time. They accused him of doing it at different times. One of them were already under oath that nothing happened, but after Scaife rolled out the bucks, the story changed.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying they are lying. I deal in FACTS. We don't know. But an accusation isn't a fact. There's a reason there hasn't been charges. I do question someone's credibility when a billionaire who has been trucking in rumors pays them off to make accusations. And I don't see anything in Clinton's makeup to make him a rapist. I realize you're willing to believe anything about him with no proof, but I'm not. It's pretty simple, really.
Quote:
So I don't see much difference between these men other than you voted for one of them twice and choose to ignore everything else that argues against the conclusion you want to believe. You believe the worse of these other men and dismiss the same behavior in your guy. In the south we call that putting lipstick on a pig. You can dress him up and put makeup on him and tell yourself he's a prince. But in real life he is still a pig just like all the other pigs in the barnyard.

Sorry, but once again, a philanderer does not a violent rapist make.

And you DO see a difference. You are defending Trump and denouncing Clinton. I can't believe the pretzels you guys twist yourselves into to defend Republicans and condemn Dems.
Quote:
As to Trump's confession. What does it mean? I don't know. Maybe it's factual. Maybe it's a guy with an ego wagging his dick in order to impress. Have you ever been in a locker room or on a construction site? I heard all kinds of shit like that on jobsites and most of it wasn't true. We learned from Bill Clinton himself that men lie about sex. Donald did it in bus on a live mike and Bill did it on national television.

No, Donald did it time after time on live radio with tens of thousands listening. He admitted to being a pervert who used his power to see naked teenage girls, as young as fourteen. He admitted to lusting after his daughter. That speaks to a man who has no morals or principles at all and no boundaries.
Quote:
So why is this important? Well folks around here like to accuse folks who didn't support Hillary of supporting a misogynistic pig like Trump.

I can't believe you wrote the words just before this, and act like you didn't write them. You just defended Trump, and used the right-wing defense that it was just locker room talk.

And yeah, you have such people working on a construction site. But people who say shit like should never be President.
Quote:
Even those folks who voted for someone other than Trump or didn't vote at all are guilty and are out to destroy the republic. And yet many of these same folks hurling those ridiculous remarks also voted for Clinton. Some voted for him twice. Those same folks were more than happy that they trotted him out at the 2016 convention. The comparison is current and it is relevant.

Clinton was a good President. On all counts, a lot better than the last two Republican Presidents!

You know, if the shoe was on the other foot, and the President was someone that you admired, you would simply not believe the accusations against him. Suddenly proof would be important to you.
Quote:
Lastly, I don't have any respect for the Clintons and certainly don't trust them but I don't "hate" them much less "hate their guts". I don't respect or trust Trump either. Hate implies something personal to me. I have no personal relationship with any of these people and they have done nothing to me personally. I wasn't raised to hate and can't say that I feel that strongly against anyone. Hate is a strong emotion and often tends to be irrational IMO. Since you brought it up.

I would put forth your feelings toward the Clintons are quite irrational, as they aren't based upon facts in any way.

And I have friends in Puerto Rico who are suffering because of Trump's actions, so my feelings toward him are pretty strong. Again based upon facts. I know that everything Trump is saying about Puerto Rico is a lie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2119
Location: Oregon
Life, human life, begins when the host (expectant mother) DECIDES it's life. So, if a murderer kills an expectant mother who wants the fetus to become a child, it's a double murder. If she's on her way to an abortion clinic, it's a single murder.

If no one knows the deceased woman's thoughts then assume double murder.

Too simple? Maybe, but it's better than arguing infinite details for a lifetime. :)

_________________
"There are but two parties now: Republicans . . . and Americans." -Keith Olbermann


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
And your opinions are not based upon facts at all. Look, I based my opinions on fact, not fantasy. I do not, for instance, have the opinion that Paul Ryan is a child molester, even tough I don't like his politics. If I read on a blog such an accusation with no facts backing it up, I won't start believe it.

Richard Mellon Scaife spend a ton of money trucking in rumors and innuendo in Arkansas, with accusations like the Clintons had scores of people murdered, culminating in Vince Foster.

None of it was based upon facts. Well, you hear all these rumors, and you believe them. Fine. But they aren't factual. Ken Starr investigated for five years, and ALL HE FOUND WAS CLINTON LYING ABOUT SEX. He found nothing else. Period.

But obviously, even though you want all Democrats under constant investigation for any and every false accusation that comes up, there's obviously no point at which you won't believe they aren't guilty. If the investigation found nothing, then the "crime" was just well-covered-up.

Why investigate if you're never going to accept the results of that investigation if it didn't uncover anything?



So, the Clintons are always guilty of everything in your book, no matter what.

Got it.

There was no investigation on Weinstein. You're trying to muddy the waters.

Again, FACTS. Clinton was NOT rich when he supposedly raped these women. Far from it. His life was NOT one where he was "used to playing by his own rules and getting pretty much what he wanted. His life was far different from the others. He was Governor of a podunk state, but that doesn't convey unlimited power, either. Yes, he's rich now, but he sure wasn't then. Facts matter to me.

I would agree with your first part being factual, but your second part is an opinion. Leave it out if you're just putting down facts.

Again, incorrect. In the other two cases, we have the men publicly admitting to doing such things.

And everyone lies. It's what makes us human.

The women on Clinton were dredged up with Richard Mellon Scaife's money. The accusations weren't over years, they were at the same time. They accused him of doing it at different times. One of them were already under oath that nothing happened, but after Scaife rolled out the bucks, the story changed.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying they are lying. I deal in FACTS. We don't know. But an accusation isn't a fact. There's a reason there hasn't been charges. I do question someone's credibility when a billionaire who has been trucking in rumors pays them off to make accusations. And I don't see anything in Clinton's makeup to make him a rapist. I realize you're willing to believe anything about him with no proof, but I'm not. It's pretty simple, really.

Sorry, but once again, a philanderer does not a violent rapist make.

And you DO see a difference. You are defending Trump and denouncing Clinton. I can't believe the pretzels you guys twist yourselves into to defend Republicans and condemn Dems.

No, Donald did it time after time on live radio with tens of thousands listening. He admitted to being a pervert who used his power to see naked teenage girls, as young as fourteen. He admitted to lusting after his daughter. That speaks to a man who has no morals or principles at all and no boundaries.

I can't believe you wrote the words just before this, and act like you didn't write them. You just defended Trump, and used the right-wing defense that it was just locker room talk.

And yeah, you have such people working on a construction site. But people who say shit like should never be President.

Clinton was a good President. On all counts, a lot better than the last two Republican Presidents!

You know, if the shoe was on the other foot, and the President was someone that you admired, you would simply not believe the accusations against him. Suddenly proof would be important to you.

I would put forth your feelings toward the Clintons are quite irrational, as they aren't based upon facts in any way.

And I have friends in Puerto Rico who are suffering because of Trump's actions, so my feelings toward him are pretty strong. Again based upon facts. I know that everything Trump is saying about Puerto Rico is a lie.



GoU

Since you are all about facts, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't get my information from blogs. I have lived in Memphis for 30 years and have relatives in Little Rock. I was aware of the Clintons before most folks in this country ever heard of the man. I never said the Clintons are guilty of everything nor did I say that I wanted all Democrats under constant investigation. Since we are dealing in facts. What I did say was that the Starr Investigation didn't clear Clinton. That's a fact. I did say not bringing charges due to insufficient evidence neither makes you guilty or innocent and is not the same as "clearing" someone. That's a fact. You appear to imply that one equals the other and they don't. That's a fact.

I will not deny the fact that all Presidents have enemies that will pay money to dig up dirt and spread rumors. They do. Does the fact that accusers (who often do not have the resources, power or influence as the abuser) accept some financial support make them liars? And being a big fish depends on the pond you are swimming in. The owner of a business can be very intimidating to an employee. The mayor can have tremendous influence over how matters are investigated in his/her town. Bill Clinton had power and influence in Arkansas even though you consider it to be a Podunk state. (Funny how his tenure as Governor of that "podunk" state was cited as one of his primary qualifications for POTUS.) What of the folks who leveled accusations against these other men? Do you think that none of them haven't received offers of help and assistance or do you expect them to do it all on their own? So it is a question of who you choose to believe. I have seen women victimized in the workplace. They aren't all just looking to make a name for themselves. You say that Starr "cleared" Clinton but then you say that you aren't saying these women are lying. What exactly are you saying? If Starr cleared Clinton then these folks have to be lying. You can't have it both ways.

I do not defend Trump. I don't think his taped interview amounts to a confession of a crime. I will agree with you and others that it is indicative of his attitude and respect towards women. I base my opinion on his abuse on the primarily on statements of his accusers. I have said that all along. And how someone performs in your opinion on the job has nothing to do with whether or not they are abusers. Cosby was very successful and so was Weinstein. You prove my point that you are willing to give Bill a pass on this because you like the job he did. One has nothing to do with the other. You are muddying the water.

I will say that a man who has a pending sexual harassment case against him and who gets himself elected President shows an extreme lack of judgement when he decides its okay to have sex with an employee in his office. It demonstrates to me that he thinks first with his dick. No you may think such a man incapable of taking things too far with other women and crossing the line on abuse. That's your privilege. I am not that naïve. However we don't fire Presidents in this country for being stupid in such matters. That standard has been set. If you want to fire a President, you got to have proof of something more than that. The Clinton impeachment IMO was the opening salvo in what has become non stop bitter partisanship over the last 20 years. I was pissed at the time at the disrespect he showed for the office and the people he was elected to serve. Had I to do it all over again I would have recommended letting the matter drop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Life, human life, begins when the host (expectant mother) DECIDES it's life. So, if a murderer kills an expectant mother who wants the fetus to become a child, it's a double murder. If she's on her way to an abortion clinic, it's a single murder.

If no one knows the deceased woman's thoughts then assume double murder.

Too simple? Maybe, but it's better than arguing infinite details for a lifetime. :)


Sounds to simple. How do you set a legal standard on that. It's arbitrary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:14 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650


GoU

Since you are all about facts, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't get my information from blogs. I have lived in Memphis for 30 years and have relatives in Little Rock. I was aware of the Clintons before most folks in this country ever heard of the man. I never said the Clintons are guilty of everything nor did I say that I wanted all Democrats under constant investigation. Since we are dealing in facts. What I did say was that the Starr Investigation didn't clear Clinton. That's a fact. I did say not bringing charges due to insufficient evidence neither makes you guilty or innocent and is not the same as "clearing" someone. That's a fact. You appear to imply that one equals the other and they don't. That's a fact.

The FACT is, Kenneth Staff went on a fishing expedition, over Whitewater, over Vince Foster, over travelgate, over troopergate. Every smear and accusation that Richard Mellon Scaife could dredge up.

He found no factual basis for any of them as to being true. The conclusion of his five-year investigation was the Starr Report, which was all about his affair with Lewensky. Nothing about anything else.

So, if someone just, out of the blue, accuses someone of being a child molester, and an investigation shows no factual basis at all and closes the investigation, then that simply means the person 'wasn't cleared", right? Might still be guilty?

Let's again be clear: All those charges were brought by a large smear industry in Arkansas paid for by Richard Mellow Scaife. Those charges were never real. That's why Starr found nothing.

Of course, you obviously believe them all to be real and "Slick Willy" and Hillary had those people murdered, right?

Me, I would say that means that the charges never had any factual basis to start with. They were just Republican dirty tricks.
Quote:
I will not deny the fact that all Presidents have enemies that will pay money to dig up dirt and spread rumors. They do. Does the fact that accusers (who often do not have the resources, power or influence as the abuser) accept some financial support make them liars?

It certainly hurts their credibility, especially when they are already under oath saying they were not mistreated by Clinton.
Quote:
And being a big fish depends on the pond you are swimming in. The owner of a business can be very intimidating to an employee. The mayor can have tremendous influence over how matters are investigated in his/her town.

Yes, but don't move the goalposts. You said:

2. They are rich, powerful men who are used to playing by their own rules and getting pretty much what they want.

Again, this was untrue about Clinton. For one thing, he was NOT rich. Can't you even admit you were wrong on that fact? Yes or no? Or are you going to ignore it?
Quote:
Bill Clinton had power and influence in Arkansas even though you consider it to be a Podunk state. (Funny how his tenure as Governor of that "podunk" state was scited as one of his primary qualifications for POTUS.)

And GW Bush was a part-time Governor of Texas that only worked 2 months every other year and had little power, and that was his primary qualifications for President, and Donald Trump is a corrupt businessman, and that's his qualifications to be President.

I know that the right-wing noise machine says every Democrat is completely unqualified and every Republican is totally qualified. Yes, yes. Stop that bullshit.

My point was, and remains, that you said these men were always so rich and powerful and used to getting their way. Sorry, but that assertion DOES NOT apply to Governor Clinton back in the eighties. You're tying yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your assertion rather than admitting it was bullshit.
Quote:
What of the folks who leveled accusations against these other men? Do you think that none of them haven't received offers of help and assistance or do you expect them to do it all on their own? So it is a question of who you choose to believe. I have seen women victimized in the workplace. They aren't all just looking to make a name for themselves.

I would say that context is important. If someone with billions decided they were going to fund a wide-ranging smear campaign on someone, then came up with all kinds of crazy accusations, like that the tartgeted person had all kinds of people murdered, I would view everything they put out with a great deal of skepticism. How about you? Would you believe it all just because you don't like the accused?

That's the difference between us. If someone accuses Paul Ryan of rape, and they have absolutely no evidence at all, I'm not going to call him a rapist. To me, you seem to be situational, depending on what you think of the person accused.
Quote:
You say that Starr "cleared" Clinton but then you say that you aren't saying these women are lying. What exactly are you saying? If Starr cleared Clinton then these folks have to be lying. You can't have it both ways.

Again, I stick to principles. First, they have no evidence. Second, they don't have a ton of credibility, since they are all part of the Scaife money smear. Third, I see nothing in Clinton's character to believe he's a rapist.

And what I feel Clinton was cleared of is all the other shit. Like troopergate and the murder of Vince Foster and all the other, what, twenty-some murders he was accused of.

Do you think he is guilty of all those things? Yes or no? Do you believe he was never cleared of those acts? Yes or no?
Quote:
I do not defend Trump. I don't think his taped interview amounts to a confession of a crime.

I've always felt that if someone tells you what they are all about, believe them.
Quote:
I will agree with you and others that it is indicative of his attitude and respect towards women. I base my opinion on his abuse on the primarily on statements of his accusers. I have said that all along. And how someone performs in your opinion on the job has nothing to do with whether or not they are abusers. Cosby was very successful and so was Weinstein. You prove my point that you are willing to give Bill a pass on this because you like the job he did. One has nothing to do with the other. You are muddying the water.

But the problem is, Joe, we have NOTHING to indicate Clinton IS an abuser, other than the wild rantings and billions of dollars of Richard Mellon Scaife.

So tell me why I SHOULD believe it. And deal in facts, please.
Quote:
I will say that a man who has a pending sexual harassment case against him and who gets himself elected President shows an extreme lack of judgement when he decides its okay to have sex with an employee in his office. It demonstrates to me that he thinks first with his dick. No you may think such a man incapable of taking things too far with other women and crossing the line on abuse. That's your privilege. I am not that naïve.

I'm sorry, but being a horndog is completely different than being a violent rapist. I am saddened you don't understand that.

It's indicative of the right, though. They also believe that being homosexual means that you are a child molester.

And that's EXACTLY what you are doing here. Because Clintons a horndog, obviously he's also a violent rapist, and NOTHING will convince you otherwise.
Quote:
However we don't fire Presidents in this country for being stupid in such matters. That standard has been set. If you want to fire a President, you got to have proof of something more than that. The Clinton impeachment IMO was the opening salvo in what has become non stop bitter partisanship over the last 20 years. I was pissed at the time at the disrespect he showed for the office and the people he was elected to serve. Had I to do it all over again I would have recommended letting the matter drop.

This ASTOUNDS me. You were PISSED at the disrespect he showed for the office.

Yet you AREN'T pissed at what Trump is doing now. The strongest reaction we get from you on Trump is that you didn't vote for him and you don't support him.

When you SHOULD be MAD AS HELL.

But I guess you only get pissed at Democrats.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ike Bana and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group