RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
And the same Republican Senators who vote to censure Franken will vote to allow Moore to serve as a Senator.

Your party WILL elect Roy Moore to the Senate. Your party will give up any pretense of the moral high ground. You'll own the moral gutter.


For the record let me be the first to say that I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ALLIGATIONS AGAINST CONYERS.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

For the record let me be the first to say that I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ALLIGATIONS AGAINST CONYERS.

Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
Why?


Because of the way he has lived his life. Because he has always been in a fish bowl. Because as a Black Man he would not have been able to get away with it and because at the time the incident allegedly occurred he was 85 years old.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Because of the way he has lived his life. Because he has always been in a fish bowl. Because as a Black Man he would not have been able to get away with it and because at the time the incident allegedly occurred he was 85 years old.

I haven't looked into it, but as I understand, there was a payout. That's damning to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
I haven't looked into it, but as I understand, there was a payout. That's damning to me.


The payout was $17,000 which to me sounds like paying a nuisance claim. The amount of the reward is another reason I believe him over her. Who settles a case for $17,000 against a nationally known figure. Then add on that he is Black and not well liked among much of our nation. A real claim would have had at least one more zero in it.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
If women are being institutionally discriminated against it needs to stop. If its against office rules to get a little head in the cloakroom then it is. If women are choosing to hop into bed with their boss or their President, for whatever their reason it's nobody's fucking business.

Cowardly dodged. So you were four fucking years old. So fucking what? I was 16 years old. I had no idea what a hound he was...but I do now. I have an opinion about JFK...that he makes Bill Clinton or any other philandering president a piker. You gonna share your opinion or just continue with all your Clinton derangement bullshit? Bill Clinton's extracurricular activities were no worse than a quarter of the chief executives weve had thus far. You really think Bill had sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex with him? Fucking really? You think he's a rapist...eh Rush? You really think Bill murdered Vince Foster...eh Sean?

But all this is just jerking off on the internet on a sunny Tuesday afternoon...

Do you want the asshole self-avowed sexual assault perp gone right now or not? It's a yes or no question. Yes...and AFAIC we can be back on track with each other. No...and we cannot. He just endorsed Roy Moore, Joe.


I think generally fucking around with employees in your office during business hours is pretty much universally against the rules regardless of the age of the participants. I find it surprising that you don't know that. Does it happen? Yes. However I do not find it a trait to be admired and in most cases it is grounds for termination. If the person works for me and/or represents me it is certainly my business. I think the Oval Office is considered a place of work. You may think it is a great place to get head if you like.

I do not know much about JFK. AFAIK he was a decent President. I personally do not find the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife on a regular basis and ranks #1 on your list of serial philanderers as a trait to be admired. I don't find that an admirable trait in anyone. Just makes them a liar as far as I am concerned. But that is a personal opinion. Clinton had other women other than Lewinsky who accused him of sexual misconduct. If you are going to hold these other men responsible for their sexual behavior then you should be willing to apply the same standards to everyone regardless of office or party. It shouldn't be that difficult a concept to understand. One standard applied across the board. Republicans and Democrats playing by the same set of rules. I just want to know what you think those rules should be.

As to your last question, if I wanted Trump to be President I would have voted for the man. Now that he is President if he is to be removed then it must be on legal constitutional grounds. I think most people in both parties are awaiting the finding of the Mueller investigation. I don't see any meaningful movement by either party towards impeachment at the moment but that may change depending upon the findings by Mueller. Absent that I believe the Republicans will pay a price for nominating and electing the man in the mid terms and in 2020 as they should. He is the President of the United States. He isn't Walt the janitor. You can't simply fire the man. The "how" and the "why" have consequences for the country, our allies and future Presidents. There is no simple yes or no answer.

Finally, if "being on track with you" means that I am required to conform to your way of thinking; I am not sure we were on track to begin with. I'm a conservative. I am not a liberal. I don't hate anyone and I don't think half the world are assholes. That's not the way I live, not the way I think and not the way I treat people who differ from me in their opinions. I am not on board with a culture war. If you want to fight one then go ahead without me. I prefer to work things out rather than fight about them. If that way of thinking and that philosophy is unacceptable to you, then I understand. We will have to be "off track".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884
There is no simple yes or no answer.


Yet more fetid chunks from the festering conservative piehole. We're talking about a self-avowed sexual predator. No...he's not Walt the janitor. Your comment is an insult to Walt the janitor. He's a sociopath, everybody in the cabinet and the Congress know it. We have a 25th Amendment that makes removing him not only legal, but a responsibility of those with the power to do it. So...

That's a no. Bye.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Ike Bana on Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I haven't looked into it, but as I understand, there was a payout. That's damning to me.

Maybe it's damning and then again maybe it's not. Do you know enough at this point in time to say for sure? That is the whole point of this discussion isn't it? You have prominent men in both parties that may or may not be guilty of sexual assault or harassment. You have female accusers or all ages coming forward with all kinds of stories some going back decades. What is the standard to be applied in these cases? How do you fairly and impartially investigate these matters so as to be fair not only to the accusers but to the accused? I think you had it right when you said you have to base your decisions on relevant facts. I don't think we know enough about the Conyers case to say for sure at this point. As for Moore, he is up for election and fair or not, these accusations are damning as to his credibility. People vote based on their beliefs and if I were a voter in Alabama I would find it impossible to vote for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I believe I did answer the questions. However, I will gladly break it down, one by one. Then you can answer mine.

First, we deal in facts, and we deal in credibility. You say you believe EVERY SINGLE WOMAN. I think you have to deal with accusations as they are taken, and the credibility of them. Like you would ANY case. However, it seems you think a politician is guilty unless PROVEN innocent. Not me.

That is simply NOT TRUE, Joe. Al Franken certainly did NOT attack the woman accusing him. Please, let's deal in reality.

Where reasonable people would. For instance, a co-worker asks another co-worker for a date, is turned down, and never asks again, to me, isn't reason to destroy his career and ability to make a living. Some people would call that harassment. I do not.

As a union rep, I've dealt with harassment several times. I gave an affidavit in one case that resulted in a huge payout and an early retirement. I can tell you I witnessed harassment of a sweet, nice girl by a dirty old bastard.

Joe, there are two main types of harassment. Quid Pro Quo means "this for that", and it's the type of a powerful man demanding sex in exchange for something. That's pretty cut and dried. That should be dealt with severely. It's an abuse of power.

Second type is hostile work environment. That is a much tougher standard, as it's in the eye of the beholder. What is acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to another. For instance, Joe, in my old shop, there were guys who had pin-up style photos in their toolboxes, which are open during work hours. None were nudes - not allowed. But some were stuff from magazines or such, some were of the fellow's girlfriends or wives. At that time it was deemed acceptable. Today it probably wouldn't be.

If someone is accused of having such photos in 1985 in their toolbox, should they now be fired and not allowed to ever make a living again?

I'd say most conservatives would make such a decision based upon the politics of the person.

I'd say no. There's cases where a woman feels uncomfortable. Many men might take offense, and then harass the woman more. That's unacceptable and should be dealt with severely. But many guys would feel bad for making a woman uncomfortable, and work to make amends. I think that sort should not lose their future.

I see the right turning this into a partisan witch hunt, that's what I see. At first I didn't, but now I think the Franken thing is a setup, to be honest. The woman works for Fox News, and the far right, including InfoWars and Roger Stone had foreknowledge of the accusations. I think the photo was what they built it around. The woman works for Fox News, for chrissakes. I think there's a quid pro quo of a plum job later in exchange for the accusation.

The right is quite good at this. One of the reasons I have my doubts about some of Clinton's accusers is that they were found and financially supported by the anti-Clinton forces paid for billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. The one that accused him of rape previously testified under oath that Clinton never did anything to her.

And, Both Trump and Roy Moore have many and very credible accusers. Plus, Trump bragged about such behavior. Roy Moore's pursuit of young girls seems to have been general knowledge at the time.

So, the right has to manufacture some accusations to take the heat off.

Now, there's another issue that's coming to the forefront. It seems that taxpayers have paid out $17 million in settlements, much of it for sexual harassment:

Records show that Congress has used $17 million of taxpayer money to settle discrimination lawsuits, which would include sexual harassment as well as discrimination based on race, age and other characteristics, since 1997. But that wouldn’t include a severance payment like the one in Conyers’ case, so the figure could be even higher.

That means there are a lot of other shoes that could drop.


Now, to me, If you've had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit with government money, you need to go. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. Conyers needs to go. He's had some kinda bad stuff already alleged, like making staffer babysit his kids.

And every other one. When it's uncovered, GO. And let the chips fall where they may.

As I've said, I believe in right and wrong, and unlike glen, I put that before party.

But I don't believe that someone with a vendetta should be able to destroy someone with just an accusation. I can't believe that someone standing in a line to take a photo with Al Franken has been groped. That's just insane that it would happen publicly like that, so I don't find that accusation credible. I got my photo taken with Senator Franken a few months ago. He sure as hell didn't grope me!

But a lot of folks are probably going to end their careers as this shakes out. So why the hell is Donald Trump President. He has admitted to using his status of owner of beauty pageants to walk in on 14-year-old girls when they are undressed. I mean, he BRAGGED about it.

So why isn't he drummed out of office? I'll tell you why - because your side has no conscience. It's about POWER, and your side doesn't care if he's a serial killer, as long as your side gets it's agenda through.

So, you asked me questions. I answered them fully and at length. Now it's your turn.


I agree with some of your points and differ with others. As far as facts and credibility are concerned, if you know the facts then credibility isn't a factor. Facts are what they are. Credibility is important when the actual facts are in question. Who do you believe in a he said/she said situation? People you happen to like or agree with are often more credible to you. Democrats are generally more credible to other democrats and republicans are generally more credible to other republicans. It's human nature. When we deal with these type of issues we have to be able to set aside those biases and apply the same standard regardless of the accuser or the accused. I think that part of the process has broken down and I may be as guilty of bias as anybody else. I did say I believe Clintons accusers as I say I believe Trump's, Franken's, and Moore's. I wouldn't advocate sending anyone to jail based purely on my opinion. I do think the accusations deserve to be investigated. Clinton is a non issue at the moment but the others currently serve or are seeking office. Moore IMO should step aside. He is damaged goods as far as his credibility in concerned and he probably will get defeated in the general election.

These accusations as far as I can tell are more than coworkers asking other co workers for a date. You and I both know that is not what is being discussed. It's sexual harassment in the workplace and in some cases sexual assaults. I have been in management for thirty years and like you I know what it looks like and I have had to deal with a few of these instances before. I have heard all the bullshit excuses I care to hear from men who think they can cop a feel from a staff person. I have zero tolerance for that kind of bullshit.

So you and I agree that such investigations should be factual and unbiased. Free of politics. One standard applied evenly and fairly. That includes current office holders including the President.

So what are your questions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531

What does joe say to the 13-Year Old Girl whose Daddy decided the best way for her learn about sex was to turn her over to several of his best friends or 12-Year Old Boy was buggered by his Mom's boyfriend?

One of children became a male prostitute, that is until he died of untreated AIDS. The girl jumped the GG Bridge over Christman as I recall.

Maybe Joe should take his very young daughter and let have some fun with his friends, it might change is mind...but I would not count on it.


Joe says that Marindem should try to follow the fucking conversation so as not to appear to be an idiot. Joe says that he has never advocated for any of the bullshit you posted and that you are way the fuck out of line. Joe says that maybe in the future you should confine yourself to simple subjects you understand. Joe says that next time you want to know what Joe will say try asking a fucking direct question like an adult instead of putting words into the mouth of another poster.

Any other questions shithead?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I agree with some of your points and differ with others. As far as facts and credibility are concerned, if you know the facts then credibility isn't a factor. Facts are what they are. Credibility is important when the actual facts are in question. Who do you believe in a he said/she said situation? People you happen to like or agree with are often more credible to you. Democrats are generally more credible to other democrats and republicans are generally more credible to other republicans. It's human nature. When we deal with these type of issues we have to be able to set aside those biases and apply the same standard regardless of the accuser or the accused. I think that part of the process has broken down and I may be as guilty of bias as anybody else. I did say I believe Clintons accusers as I say I believe Trump's, Franken's, and Moore's. I wouldn't advocate sending anyone to jail based purely on my opinion. I do think the accusations deserve to be investigated. Clinton is a non issue at the moment but the others currently serve or are seeking office. Moore IMO should step aside. He is damaged goods as far as his credibility in concerned and he probably will get defeated in the general election.

These accusations as far as I can tell are more than coworkers asking other co workers for a date. You and I both know that is not what is being discussed. It's sexual harassment in the workplace and in some cases sexual assaults. I have been in management for thirty years and like you I know what it looks like and I have had to deal with a few of these instances before. I have heard all the bullshit excuses I care to hear from men who think they can cop a feel from a staff person. I have zero tolerance for that kind of bullshit.

So you and I agree that such investigations should be factual and unbiased. Free of politics. One standard applied evenly and fairly. That includes current office holders including the President.

So what are your questions?

*sigh*.

They are right here, right in the post you ignored and where you demanded I answer your questions first. Which I did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I believe the first thing you do is NOT to make false equivalencies and lump everything together. That is what is being done now, and what you just did. What you have just said is that you believe any and all accusations against any politician, and that, basically, all have an ultimate penalty, expulsion from politics. Are you willing, here and now, to say that you will NEVER vote for ANY politician that has a woman making an accusation against them, no matter whether they are believable or not?

I know these are tough questions, as conservatives don't seem to have consciences nor are they able to put themselves into the shoes of others. What if you were a manager, and had a troubled female employee, who you had to fire. While treating them with dignity and respect, you nevertheless had to use progressive discipline, and the employee had to be fired. The woman then sues the company and makes a false accusation of you, that you made lewd remarks and demanded sex from her to keep her job. She has no proof and it's her word against yours. From your comments here, it is obvious that your view is the woman is to be unquestionably to be believed, and you should be fired and never allowed to work again.

Now, let's also be clear about something else. You say you believe everything every woman has said. There is a woman who says that Trump violently raped her when she was 13 years old.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that a child rapist is now our President? Yes or no?

Let's just start with this.


Question 1: I have been investigated by the EEOC on one occasion based on a complaint from just such an employee. I would note that the EEOC did not dismiss her complaint outright but did their job and investigated her allegations. They reviewed her file and spoke with her co workers. They spoke to the HR Director. They never spoke to me directly. The matter was dismissed by the EEOC. They did their job in a fair and impartial manner as far as I was concerned. If you have nothing to hide an investigation is no big deal. But then again, I am not a public figure.

Question 2: I spoke generally about believing Trump's accusers and well as Moore's accusers meaning that I have no reason to question or disbelieve their accusations. Certainly any reasonable person would expect someone to look beyond the initial allegations and investigate the facts and circumstances. I don't believe you should summarily dismiss an allegation because the accused is a political figure with whom you happen to agree nor do I think you question the character of the accuser because they are receiving assistance from outside parties. That doesn't mean they are liars. Fighting a public figure costs money and many of these victims have little to no resources for such a fight.

Question 3: Do I believe that Trump is a child rapist? I don't know. I am not familiar enough with he facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation. If the facts are there then impeach the man and throw him in jail. I would fully support such an action. Do I think he has probably may unwanted sexual advances towards women possibly crossing the line into criminal misconduct? I think that may be a very distinct possibility. I don't have any evidence to support my opinion and it takes more than my opinion to impeach a President. I do believe you don't impeach a sitting President without evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Question 1: I have been investigated by the EEOC on one occasion based on a complaint from just such an employee. I would note that the EEOC did not dismiss her complaint outright but did their job and investigated her allegations. They reviewed her file and spoke with her co workers. They spoke to the HR Director. They never spoke to me directly. The matter was dismissed by the EEOC. They did their job in a fair and impartial manner as far as I was concerned. If you have nothing to hide an investigation is no big deal. But then again, I am not a public figure.

Question 2: I spoke generally about believing Trump's accusers and well as Moore's accusers meaning that I have no reason to question or disbelieve their accusations. Certainly any reasonable person would expect someone to look beyond the initial allegations and investigate the facts and circumstances. I don't believe you should summarily dismiss an allegation because the accused is a political figure with whom you happen to agree nor do I think you question the character of the accuser because they are receiving assistance from outside parties. That doesn't mean they are liars. Fighting a public figure costs money and many of these accused have little to no resources.

Question 3: Do I believe that Trump is a child rapist? I don't know. I am not familiar enough with he facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation. If the facts are there then impeach the man and throw him in jail. I would fully support such an action. Do I think he has probably may unwanted sexual advances towards women possibly crossing the line into criminal misconduct? I think that may be a very distinct possibility. I don't have any evidence to support my opinion and it takes more than my opinion to impeach a President. I do believe you don't impeach a sitting President without evidence.

Folks, this is a great example of what is called "Pissing Backwards".

Joe, you made a statement. You said - tell you what, so you can't say I mis-represent what you said, in this post, you said:

I for one do not question the women making the accusations. I believe them. I believed them when it was Bill Clinton and I believe them when it is Trump and I believe then when it is Franken and Moore.

Now you piss backwards. When specifically asked, you say "I don't know".

You know what? When I say something, I generally don't HAVE to piss backwards.

Maybe, from here on out, you don't say shit you have to take back later. I do find in irritating when you say something one post, and then retract it in another. I figured you would, because what you said was, in a word, asinine.

You insinuated that women don't lie. Of course they do. All humans lie. And just the word of a woman should not be all it takes to destroy a man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Folks, this is a great example of what is called "Pissing Backwards".

Joe, you made a statement. You said - tell you what, so you can't say I mis-represent what you said, in this post, you said:

I for one do not question the women making the accusations. I believe them. I believed them when it was Bill Clinton and I believe them when it is Trump and I believe then when it is Franken and Moore.

Now you piss backwards. When specifically asked, you say "I don't know".

You know what? When I say something, I generally don't HAVE to piss backwards.

Maybe, from here on out, you don't say shit you have to take back later. I do find in irritating when you say something one post, and then retract it in another. I figured you would, because what you said was, in a word, asinine.

You insinuated that women don't lie. Of course they do. All humans lie. And just the word of a woman should not be all it takes to destroy a man.


I said I believed them. That doesn't mean their allegations should be taken as fact without investigation. You believe all kinds of shit and make statements to that effect on this board. Does that mean that all your beliefs are facts and should be accepted by the world as such or does it mean that is your OPINION. You are a smart guy. You know the difference. If everything you believe is to be taken as fact by the rest of the world then we have an impossible standard. My point is that you do not have a standard for one set of accusers and a different standard for another. You don't assume one set is our for profit and doing it for the money simply because you happen to like the guy they are accusing. You investigate the facts regardless. You don't make assumption on the front end without doing the work. That is fair to no one.

Saying I believe someone doesn't mean I know all the facts. Anyone with a scintilla of common sense should know that. Saying you believe someone doesn't mean you have all the facts. To state that I believed that women don't lie or men don't lie is simply putting words in my mouth. That is dishonest. Why don't you ask whether I think humans lie? Even ones you may initially believe? But that would make common sense and possibly lead to a reasonable discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I said I believed them. That doesn't mean their allegations should be taken as fact without investigation. You believe all kinds of shit and make statements to that effect on this board. Does that mean that all your beliefs are facts and should be accepted by the world as such or does it mean that is your OPINION. You are a smart guy. You know the difference. If everything you believe is to be taken as fact by the rest of the world then we have an impossible standard. My point is that you do not have a standard for one set of accusers and a different standard for another. You don't assume one set is our for profit and doing it for the money simply because you happen to like the guy they are accusing. You investigate the facts regardless. You don't make assumption on the front end without doing the work. That is fair to no one.

Saying I believe someone doesn't mean I know all the facts. Anyone with a scintilla of common sense should know that. Saying you believe someone doesn't mean you have all the facts. To state that I believed that women don't lie or me don't lie is simply putting words in my mouth. That is dishonest. Why don't you ask whether I think humans lie? Even ones you may initially believe? But that would make common sense and possibly lead to a reasonable discussion.

Why don't you stop pissing backwards? You said you believed ALL OF THEM. I then asked if you believed the woman who said he raped her when she was fourteen.

Suddenly you don't believe all of them.

Look, you made the statement. Don't bitch at me for taking your word, okay?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Why don't you stop pissing backwards? You said you believed ALL OF THEM. I then asked if you believed the woman who said he raped her when she was fourteen.

Suddenly you don't believe all of them.

Look, you made the statement. Don't bitch at me for taking your word, okay?


I have absolutely no reason to dismiss her allegations without investigation. I have no reason not to believe her. That is a far cry from making a factual statement that says the sitting President is guilty of rape. Are you seriously that dense? Are you capable of thinking or do you have to have someone draw a map for you? Are you saying that we should believe no one unless we have videotaped evidence or DNA? Are you saying we should dismiss all allegations made by 14 year olds? Believing someone doesn't mean you don't look at the facts. Doesn't mean you don't investigate. You are just playing stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I have absolutely no reason to dismiss her allegations without investigation. I have no reason not to believe her. That is a far cry from making a factual statement that says the sitting President is guilty of rape. Are you seriously that dense? Are you capable of thinking or do you have to have someone draw a map for you? Are you saying that we should believe no one unless we have videotaped evidence or DNA? Are you saying we should dismiss all allegations made by 14 year olds? Believing someone doesn't mean you don't look at the facts. Doesn't mean you don't investigate. You are just playing stupid.

No, Joe. I'm NOT dense. Again, you are telling me NOT to take you at your word for what you say.

This is YOUR problem, not mine. I don't have to piss backwards on what I say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
No, Joe. I'm NOT dense. Again, you are telling me NOT to take you at your word for what you say.

This is YOUR problem, not mine. I don't have to piss backwards on what I say.


Well, perhaps I thought I didn't have to explain everything quite so literally to someone who claims to be an educated man. I'm clearly not as much an expert on pissing on myself as are you; backwards or forwards. ;)

Tomorrow will be a better day. Take care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:02 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Well, perhaps I thought I didn't have to explain everything quite so literally to someone who claims to be an educated man. I'm clearly not as much an expert on pissing on myself as are you; backwards or forwards. ;)

Tomorrow will be a better day. Take care.

Joe, fucking take responsibility for what you write. You made a VERY clear and concise statement. You then demand that I take it as something else altogether. Then you blame ME for not understanding that you meant something else completely different.

I'm going to once again quote what you wrote:

I for one do not question the women making the accusations. I believe them. I believed them when it was Bill Clinton and I believe them when it is Trump and I believe then when it is Franken and Moore.

I plead guilty for taking you at your word. I then did the obvious - One of the woman accusing Trump said she was fourteen and Trump and a buddy of his raped her repeatedly. Now you use your usual tactic of feigning ignorance about that specific instance. Then you attack me for taking you at your word. To paraphrase a character from Animal House: "Hey, you fucked up. You listened to me!"

But this is what happens when you deal with a conservative: When you catch them in bullshit, they get mad and the blame YOU. It's YOUR fault! You often complain that I take you out of context, or misstate your views. Now you're mad and you're trying to belittle me that I DIDN'T take you out of context, that I quoted you exactly, because OBVIOUSLY a normal person would understand you didn't actually MEAN what you CLEARLY wrote.

Now you're calling me stupid, and questioning my education. This is all a conservative tactic. You guys seem to have a genetic inability to take personal responsibility for ANYTHING.

But it comes down to this: You take no responsibility. When you take a stand, it is not a stand. When you write something, you will not stand by it. You will run away from what you say when it's convenient for you to do so. When you say something indefensible, you not only won't defend it, you'll get upset at anyone that points out what you said is indefensible. You'll call them stupid and assert they don't have enough higher intelligence to understand what you REALLY mean.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884
I do believe you don't impeach a sitting President without evidence.


We don't need a fucking impeachment. We have a 25th Amendment. When a sitting president is unable to discharge the duties of the office, "the Vice President, together with a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress" not only have the legal authority, but the fucking responsibility to remove that person from office.

Trump has shown even the most casual obsever that he is too psychopathologically impaired to appropriately discharge the duties of the office.

Quote:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
It wasn’t the White House, it wasn’t the State Department, it wasn’t father LaVar’s so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man’s version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think..
4:25 AM - Nov 22, 2017

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
...LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It’s a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!
4:33 AM - Nov 22, 2017


Don King without the hair? Really Joe? This is your President, not Walt the janitor? You insult Walt the janitor who is not a deranged racist animal.

Impeachment is not necessary. And anyone who would reject invocation of the 25th amendment to remove this sick lunatic, this sociopathic grifter, this self-avowed sexual assult perp from office is a Trumper asshole like the rest of the Trumper assholes. Perhaps you could just go fetch your balls from your other pants and admit it.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Ike Bana on Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8488
Location: miles from nowhere

We don't need a fucking impeachment. We have a 25th Amendment. When a sitting president is unable to discharge the duties of the office, "the Vice President, together with a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress" not only have the legal authority, but the fucking responsibility to remove that person from office.

Trump has shown even the most casual obersever that he is too psychopathologically impaired to appropriately discharge the duties of the office.



Don King without the hair? Really Joe? This is your President, not Walt the janitor? You insult Walt the janitor who is not a deranged racist animal.

Impeachment is not necessary. And anyone who would reject invocation of the 25th amendment to remove this sick lunatic, this sociopathic grifter, this self-avowed sexual assult perp from office is a Trumper asshole like the rest of the Trumper assholes. Perhaps you could just go fetch your balls from your other pants and admit it.

Donnie didn’t get the kid out. Xi Jinping played Trump like a fiddle just like Putin does.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884
Donnie didn’t get the kid out. Xi Jinping played Trump like a fiddle just like Putin does.


Donald spent a lifetime in his first career taking credit for shit he didn't do. He's already spent a lifetime worth of time in the past year in his current job doing the same thing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884

We don't need a fucking impeachment. We have a 25th Amendment. When a sitting president is unable to discharge the duties of the office, "the Vice President, together with a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress" not only have the legal authority, but the fucking responsibility to remove that person from office.

Trump has shown even the most casual obsever that he is too psychopathologically impaired to appropriately discharge the duties of the office.



Don King without the hair? Really Joe? This is your President, not Walt the janitor? You insult Walt the janitor who is not a deranged racist animal.

Impeachment is not necessary. And anyone who would reject invocation of the 25th amendment to remove this sick lunatic, this sociopathic grifter, this self-avowed sexual assult perp from office is a Trumper asshole like the rest of the Trumper assholes. Perhaps you could just go fetch your balls from your other pants and admit it.


I'm calling you out Joe.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:53 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I'm calling you out Joe.

Not interested in this thread going into the memory hole.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ap215 and 25 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group