Wait. Hillary fucked Paula Jones?
We let Clinton off the hook because he had consensual sex with one other person. It didn’t affect his job and his presidency was stronger for it after the laughably hypocritical attacks by the GOP.
Bill Cosby is a rapist of over 30 women. So yeah, big difference.
How’s that tube squatting coming along, SA? Have you been able to reach your anus to the floor yet?
We need more context than is provided in that story to try to suss out exactly what Clinton is saying. But a position of “Everybody should be believed at first before they are disbelieved based on evidence,” is entirely compatible with also disbelieving a story after an investigation happens and no evidence is found. Yes, it seems odd that in that case “evidence” could mean “lack of evidence”, but English is a funny language that way.
So… stupid idea fail.
(On the other hand, I agree that liberals in general are probably a bit more willing to overlook Bill Clinton’s possible transgressions that they would be for an equivalent figure on the right. But that’s basically a universal human behavior pattern.)
But you’ve ignored (or don’t believe) the accusations of sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, the accusation of sexual assault by Kathleen Willey, and the accusation of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
There was no real investigation of any of those cases that turned up anything more than their word against Clinton’s. And in the end, Clinton did settle with Jones rather than go to trial. Which isn’t an admission of guilt, of course, but also doesn’t burnish his claims of innocence. Whether or not Jones was telling the truth is still an open question. But according to Hillarylogic, she should be believed, since there’s no evidence debunking her claim. I’d also note that Clinton’s defense never involved disputing her claims, only whether or not any damage was done to her by his actions.
Now I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it be easier to just say, “never happened” and force Jones to prove it did?
Although there are doubtless partisan reasons for this, conservative politicians are much more likely to identify with being pro-family, pro-Christian and the like so their daliances will naturally be more scrutinized due to the hypocrisy.
Jesus, Addy is this the best you can up with? Semantics, now? have you noticed how many more posts of substance occur over in SRIOTD? Do the ratios suggest anything to you?
It’s more than that. Over at the other thread, you have elected politicians, governors, congresspeople, state reps. Some of whom aspire to the Presidency. The rest are from pundits with GOP clout.
Here? Anyone will do. College kids. Activists. Some guy with a blog.
The quality of the arguments are different, but the influence of the ones making the arguments are even more disparate.
No, be fair. Most of them are clowns.
The court dismissed Paula Jones’ lawsuit on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate any damages, though Clinton settled before the appeal to protect his career.
Kathleen Willey had a lot of claims, none of which she could really back up, and her official testimony is all over the place.
Juanita Broaddrick also had a lot of claims but her suit was eventually dismissed too. She kept changing her testimony and is not reliable either.
If 30 more women come out to accuse Bill Clinton of rape, I’ll take it seriously. But we have 3 cases which have been dismissed filled with unreliable information. That’s why I don’t think Clinton did anything wrong. Its not that I don’t believe them, its that a court has already evaluated their claims and found them wanting. You can say a court hasn’t even looked at the Cosby rape victim claims, but there is a minuscule possibility that 30 random women just decided to accuse Cosby of rape for the hell of it.
No, whether from a legal or public relations perspective. If you can dispose of a case without trial on summary judgment, you do so. Trials are expensive. And certainly it would have done Clinton no good to have Jones and other women testifying for hours on national television about what Clinton did to/with them, whether or not it was true.
How about the Attorney general of the United States?
Fortunately, she’s walking back her comments, but seriously, not only was her original statement stupid(that she would prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric), but it pertains directly to her ability to do her job.
Democrats actually have a history of saying really stupid things in front of ethnic or religious groups. Perhaps they aren’t really stupid, but assume their minority listeners are stupid? Dick Gephardt did similar violence to the Constitution when he promised to ignore court decisions striking down affirmative action laws at a PUSH coalition event:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/printthread.php?t=193023
See? See? It happened 12 years ago, too; Democrats have a history of it!
That was the Gephardt incident. The Lynch incident was this week.
Just to be clear: the nation’s top law enforcement officer pledged to a Muslim audience who she obviously thinks is stupid because she knows better, that she would prosecute hate speech.
Yes, I know. Twice in twelve years is a pattern; why, it’s practically a habit.
The Loretta Lynch statement qualifies as a “stupid liberal idea”, I think. I hope it was a brain fart to use the word “rhetoric” when she meant “violence”, but either way I’m please that she walked it back.
No, it wasn’t, and Jack Batty didn’t point out jack shit.
Hey, you fucking dipshit. Have a chance to learn a single fucking thing while you were away?
Surely, the more relevant question is whether he has the ability, rather than the chance, to learn.
I find it funny that you guys bitch when I argue on the stupid Republican thread, but you guys are perfectly content to make this thread about conservative posters.