Well, then, I pit him for being a horrendous and lazy pitter.
Hell, the opening post was a fail as pointed out by Jack Batty two posts later.
Stupid liberal idea from the top Democrat: “Everyone should be believed at first before they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
Pretty serious failure of logic there. None of Clinton’s accusers have been debunked based on evidence, they’ve been debunked based on lack of evidence to back up their claims. Which means that no, accusers should not just “be believed” as a general principle.
Or it could be the lack of evidence is due to the made-up claims.
Could be, but without evidence, hasn’t Clinton made the argument that accusers should be believed?
So you’re all right with the police accusing you of a crime and not having to provide evidence before throwing you in jail?
Not all right with it at all. Thus the stupidity of Clinton’s statement.
No. Accusers need to also provide evidence.
That’s your view, not Clinton’s. Unless it’s her husband, of course. It’s well established that the rules don’t apply to them, even the rules they made.
I think that she’s saying that the default position when someone tells you something should be that they’re telling the truth. That’s not unreasonable to me.
It’s amusing to me that so many posters here are perfectly willing to let Bill Clinton off the hook because there’s no evidence despite multiple and sometimes tearful accusations, yet Bill Cosby’s life and career have been ruined over accusations that equally lacking in evidence and in some cases contradicted by the evidence.
I find Juanita Broaddrick’s account of her treatment by Bill Clinton particularly harrowing because she claims Clinton physically overpowered her and while raping her bit her lip so hard it bled and bruised, coldly telling her as he left the room after he was finished that she’d better put some ice on it. She also claims Hillary Clinton deliberately made a beeline for her at a political even some time later and stressed so forcefully that the Clinton’s appreciated everything she’d done for them that it was clear she knew what happened and was trying to make sure Broaddrick stayed quiet about it, and that Bill Clinton apologized many years afterward, explaining that he was sorry about what he’d done and was a changed man.
At any rate, as far as Hillary Clinton herself goes, it sounds to me like she’s now saying the accused in rape cases should be considered guilty until proven innocent. I’m sure she gets tired of having to deal with the contretemps created by Bill’s disinclination to keep it in his pants, but you’d think her training as a lawyer would tell her there are serious problems with such an approach.
Sure, in your personal dealings. Your friend comes to you, says she’s been raped, so yeah, you take her side until evidence tells you you shouldn’t.
But public accusations should be regarded with neutrality as the default. Or even outright skepticism. How many have to come out before we believe them? I know the number is somewhere between 5 and 20, but apparently 3 means the guy must be innocent.
I don’t know of anyone that thinks that Clinton is innocent. It’s just that there’s nothing that can be done about it now.
Would this be the same Paula Jones who made pugilistic history with Tanya Harding? Paula Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks? That one?
Notice that it’s also okay to use the reputation of the accuser as an attention whore against her.
You get right down to it, I feel sorry for her, she was exploited and conned by Kenneth Star and his merry band of rat fuckers. They used to her more ruthlessly than any big city pimp. By the time she got to where she was looking at the check to get in the ring with Tanya Harding, she had no more dignity to lose.
You got anything to say about those cynical cocksuckers, or is this Liberal Hypocrisy Week again?
This is the liberal thread. Ken Starr complaints go in the conservative thread.
“Multiple” accusations against Clinton? Cite? As for Cosby, I think we’re now up to 27 accusations.
Thus my observation that 3 is evidently not enough but 20 definitely is. So would 3 more accusers mean Clinton is probably guilty? Or would it take at least a dozen?
By my count, we’re up to 3. Jones, Broaddick, and Willey. Which BTW, is two more than there was against Clarence Thomas, who was of course ultra guilty, no question about it, shouldn’t have been confirmed because of it.
Hey, you know it when you see it.